I have posted a public formal request for source code HERE. If you want properly secured working firmware, AOSP, CM and other ROMs, then reshare the G+ post and tag and plus Omate TrueSmart , MediaTek and the Free Software Foundation.
Lokifish Marz said:
I have posted a public formal request for source code HERE. If you want properly secured working firmware, AOSP, CM and other ROMs, then reshare the G+ post and tag and plus Omate TrueSmart , MediaTek and the Free Software Foundation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a petition running:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aosp-support-for-mediatek-devices/
source: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2636257
Lokifish Marz said:
I have posted a public formal request for source code HERE. If you want properly secured working firmware, AOSP, CM and other ROMs, then reshare the G+ post and tag and plus Omate TrueSmart , MediaTek and the Free Software Foundation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Done
BPM said:
There is a petition running:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aosp-support-for-mediatek-devices/
source: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2636257
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Petitions are pretty much useless. There was over 100000 signatures for moto to release source. Result, nothing, nada, zilch. Spreading the word and getting the tech news/blogs to pick up on it is more ideal as it may get the actuall owners of the Linux kernel notice. From there, additional pressure and possible legal action.
Lokifish Marz said:
Petitions are pretty much useless. There was over 100000 signatures for moto to release source. Result, nothing, nada, zilch. Spreading the word and getting the tech news/blogs to pick up on it is more ideal as it may get the actuall owners of the Linux kernel notice. From there, additional pressure and possible legal action.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Well android authority picked it up. If we perhaps collaborate with the CyanogenMod for Mediatek ppl, we could get the XDA portal to cover out plight.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2274332
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
You should pursue your specific device manufacturers for distributing source code, and not MediaTek as they are not in obligation relations with You or anybody else but with other hardware manufacturers which utilizes their SoC.
As the matter of fact, I asked three manufacturers who are involved in producing Alcatel's devices, and they provided me with source code I asked for (devices based on MT6572, MT6589).
What MTK charging for is bundle of sources and technical documentations for their hardware, and they are charging other companies who uses that electronics, not end users. Keep in mind that MTK don't producing phones but instead electronics. So next time knock on right door before throw hate over internet.
CyberianIce said:
You should pursue your specific device manufacturers for distributing source code, and not MediaTek as they are not in obligation relations with You or anybody else but with other hardware manufacturers which utilizes their SoC.
As the matter of fact, I asked three manufacturers who are involved in producing Alcatel's devices, and they provided me with source code I asked for (devices based on MT6572, MT6589).
What MTK charging for is bundle of sources and technical documentations for their hardware, and they are charging other companies who uses that electronics, not end users. Keep in mind that MTK don't producing phones but instead electronics. So next time knock on right door before throw hate over internet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Charging for Linux Kernel sources is piracy, regardless of who is being charged. MTKs policy just adds a level of abstraction. They are distributing the kernel, they need to provide source.
AdamOutler said:
Charging for Linux Kernel sources is piracy, regardless of who is being charged. MTKs policy just adds a level of abstraction. They are distributing the kernel, they need to provide source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are distributing kernel but not to individuals like You but to device manufacturers, so what do You want from MTK?
I'm aware of this, Sir, and they are to, but somebody wrong interpreted this, they are charging for technical documentation for hardware manufacturers not for individuals and not for source code. Source codes must be provided by device manufacturers from which an individual bought device because one must accept that MTK can't take responsibility for firms which make phones with their SoCs, especially because there are many clones of popular devices like SGS3 or SGS4 on market, that is whay you need to search source on other place, not MTK. Everyone know how deep are MTK's SoCs involved in plagiarism but that is not their fault, they just produce cheap chips.
Look here an example how serious firms like Alcatel (who now have CE) always provide full codes for their devices, even for MTK ones: http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/alcatel/files/
You can find here MTK source codes for many popular SoCs.
You can't expect same behaviour from all manufacturers why make devices with MTK chips, especially from those low-profile companies form east universe.
If you have a Samsung Device you get the Kernel Sources from opensource.samsung.com
and not from Snapdragon or Qualcomm
And petitions dont work because the Vendor dont care about
Found on Github:
https://github.com/aniruddha-adhikary/mt6572_kernel
AdamOutler said:
They are distributing the kernel, they need to provide source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they are not. Device manufacturers are distributing the kernel, it's up to them to release their sources and they are the legally binded entities to do so. MediaTek is not even able to deliver sources for such requests because they are not the holders of the software and any GPL source request to them has the same legal worth as to asking your grandmother for sources.
Sad to see such horse-raddish misinformation still going on on XDA.
AndreiLux said:
No they are not. Device manufacturers are distributing the kernel, it's up to them to release their sources and they are the legally binded entities to do so. MediaTek is not even able to deliver sources for such requests because they are not the holders of the software and any GPL source request to them has the same legal worth as to asking your grandmother for sources.
Sad to see such horse-raddish misinformation still going on on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, they are. They provide a compilation server with no way to get the source off, only patch.
AndreiLux said:
No they are not. Device manufacturers are distributing the kernel, it's up to them to release their sources and they are the legally binded entities to do so. MediaTek is not even able to deliver sources for such requests because they are not the holders of the software and any GPL source request to them has the same legal worth as to asking your grandmother for sources.
Sad to see such horse-raddish misinformation still going on on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CyberianIce said:
What MTK charging for is bundle of sources [...] and they are charging other companies who uses that electronics, not end users. Keep in mind that MTK don't producing phones but instead electronics. So next time knock on right door before throw hate over internet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And the Mediatek fanclub arrives right on cue...
CyberianIce said:
You should pursue your specific device manufacturers for distributing source code, and not MediaTek as they are not in obligation relations with You or anybody else but with other hardware manufacturers which utilizes their SoC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neither Omate nor Umeox has the Mediatek sources. Mediatek has done a great job at keeping the code they stole from American companies under lock and key, which is why porting Cyanogenmod to mediatek devices has been such a slow and near impossible task.
Without kernel sources or appropriate drivers, there is little the dev community can do.
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
Not sure how true this article is: http://www.androidauthority.com/mediatek-gpl-360190/
but it says that OMate doesn't even have source and that they receive binaries from MediaTek and are unable to distribute source they don't have (obviously). In that case, MediaTek is required to release source.
xboxfanj said:
Not sure how true this article is: http://www.androidauthority.com/mediatek-gpl-360190/
but it says that OMate doesn't even have source and that they receive binaries from MediaTek and are unable to distribute source they don't have (obviously). In that case, MediaTek is required to release source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is completely true. Mediatek demanded an exuberant price for code that should already be available under GPL.
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
AndreiLux said:
No they are not. Device manufacturers are distributing the kernel, it's up to them to release their sources and they are the legally binded entities to do so. MediaTek is not even able to deliver sources for such requests because they are not the holders of the software and any GPL source request to them has the same legal worth as to asking your grandmother for sources.
Sad to see such horse-raddish misinformation still going on on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
[email protected] fanboism....
Read the GPL dude. Yes they are.
Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
kuronosan said:
[email protected] fanboism....
Read the GPL dude. Yes they are.
Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's actually right there. If I give you code without distributing binaries and you modify the code and distribute binaries, only you are required to give source. If the binaries were made by the OEM, MediaTek is not liable.
xboxfanj said:
He's actually right there. If I give you code without distributing binaries and you modify the code and distribute binaries, only you are required to give source. If the binaries were made by the OEM, MediaTek is not liable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point is that the binaries were given to the OEM by mediatek.
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
Why such attitude? Remember, it is in my best interest to get that source codes, I'm not MTK fun. I'm only person who's duty is to understand and interpret basics of international business laws. MTK don't distribute anything to END USERS and they have no obligations to them (You, me or anybody here). But they have to device manufacturers, and they have to END USERS. It's a chain. And If you pull GPL legal arguments than you must respect other aspects of international business laws.
So anybody who wants their source code, should search for that at their device manufacturer address, as that is in their jurisdiction, instead of MTK.
You should be aware that there are some firms which make clones of popular devices (breaking law), and what do you expect from them, to respect GPL v2, are you serious? Those companies even have no licences for sale such devices! And on the other side there are some firms which will give you source code on demand.
@jumoog
Nice analogy is with Qualcomm and SAMSUNG.
CyberianIce said:
MTK don't distribute anything to END USERS and they have no obligations to them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MediaTek may try to cover up for courts in Taiwan/China, but they are the bad guys here that charge Umeox/Omate for something they must supply for free to the OEM and the OEM to the end customers.
Courts favor domestic companies, compare to Apple vs Samsung.
But if MediaTek wants to have OEM in the Western world, they will have to comply to the GPL.
gerhardo said:
MediaTek may try to cover up for courts in Taiwan/China, but they are the bad guys here that charge Umeox/Omate for something they must supply for free to the OEM and the OEM to the end customers.
Courts favor domestic companies, compare to Apple vs Samsung.
But if MediaTek wants to have OEM in the Western world, they will have to comply to the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MediaTek had OEMs in Western World last time I checked. European Union / France is western enough for my understanding and they do business under CE (Conformité Européenne) regullary. But does your OEM have ITC/FTC/CE approval for what it's doing, that is different question and normally if they don't, they will redirect you to MediaTek probably to shake you off.
Related
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
We are starting a movement toward HTC to get them to release their source code on a more timely basis such as samsung. We need as many people as we can get to do this with us because they won't listen if only users of 1 devices complains. i know others devices have been held up by htc so we are reaching out to (or at least trying to) all of the htc device forums we can in order to spread the word and get everyone involved. please take a look at the link below as it has all of the info regarding this.
link: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1821328
PETITON: http://www.change.org/petitions/htc-htc-needs-to-speed-up-kernel-source-releases?share_id=sLjvObpqne
Edit: the thread and the petition have been reworked in a way that will reflect a more professional stance on the issue. please read it and voice your opinions about it so i can make it better if needed.
even thow htc are not following GLP does not mean for us to get mad over this it will come if not then we should boycot htc
I am not signing a petition that uses terms like "B.S." in the letter. If you want HTC to respond, the letter should be done a bit more professionally and not read like it was written by a pre-teen.
Great idea, though. I am sure there is an appropriate letter to be found somewhere on the interwebs.
BTW, I can't believe that, with all the Verizon delays in releasing ICS, HTC does not already have the source ready for release. The OTA was almost exactly the same as the leak we got a month earlier.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
cflo360 said:
even thow htc are not following GLP does not mean for us to get made over this it will come if not then we should boycot htc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? Lol
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
jclendineng said:
Huh? Lol
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exact thoughts I had
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
WookieFan said:
I am not signing a petition that uses terms like "B.S." in the letter. If you want HTC to respond, the letter should be done a bit more professionally and not read like it was written by a pre-teen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, that's a bit embarrassing. I'm beginning to think this device is mostly owned by people who are teens to early 20's. Between the way petition letter was written and the high school drama on this board over the past several months, I think I may be in the minority owning this phone in my late 30's.
cflo360 said:
even thow htc are not following GLP does not mean for us to get made over this it will come if not then we should boycot htc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me see if I could translate:
Dear kind sirs,
Even through HTC isn't following the GLP, we shouldn't get our jimmies rustled. If they continue to not give us what we demand, we should boycott the company.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
nolimit78 said:
Let me see if I could translate:
Dear kind sirs,
Even through HTC isn't following the GLP, we shouldn't get our jimmies rustled. If they continue to not give us what we demand, we should boycott the company.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice!
HTC will eventually release the source. I don't think a petition will do anything at all to expedite that. It's not a priority and the very small percentage of Rezound users that want the source is not going to make it so. If you're really up in arms about it and want to do something that has a chance of working, not a guarantee, but a chance, report a GPL violation.
Some things to keep in mind is that GNU can't do anything about it in this case, so don't waste time reporting it to them. They publish the license, but they are not the copyright holder of the kernel source. Only the copyright holders can do anything about license violations. In this case, there are several thousand copyright holders...everyone who has ever had any code merged into the mainline of the Linux kernel is a copyright holder. Their interests are protected by the Linux Foundation at http://www.linuxfoundation.org/. That is where to start if you want to report a violation.
It's fine to have this energy about this, but don't make the mistake of misdirecting in a bad direction.
Sorry, but I can't sign this.
While I fully support HTC complying with the GPL. I support the usage of basic grammar in formal writing even more.
Was the petition machine translated? That would explain a lot.
foggytown said:
Sorry, but I can't sign this.
While I fully support HTC complying with the GPL. I support the usage of basic grammar in formal writing even more.
Was the petition machine translated? That would explain a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
If you're going to make a petition for something like this, then you need to do it professionally / with well-written grammar, etc. Right now, like previously mentioned, it just sounds like a bunch of teenagers that aren't getting their way. Re-write the petition to make it sound more formal / professional, and you'll get more support.
Not to mention all the other problems with this, I don't really think this is [URGENT]...
Is someone going to kill your dog if they don't release the source or something?
PhxkinMassacre said:
We are starting a movement toward HTC to get them to release their source code on a more timely basis such as samsung. We need as many people as we can get to do this with us because they won't listen if only users of 1 devices complains. i know others devices have been held up by htc so we are reaching out to (or at least trying to) all of the htc device forums we can in order to spread the word and get everyone involved. please take a look at the link below as it has all of the info regarding this.
link: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1821328
PETITON: http://www.change.org/petitions/htc-htc-needs-to-speed-up-kernel-source-releases?share_id=sLjvObpqne
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-_- really?????? come on now. have you read the GPL????
GPL has no specific date or time:
"While this version of the GPL does not place an explicit timeframe upon fulfilment of source distribution under section 3(b), it is the consensus viewpoint of the Linux community that such distribution take place as soon as is practical and certainly no more than 14 days after a request is made."
^ they have a choice to follow what other linux devs do which is 14 days. its only been 6 official days sense launch of ICS on the rez.
Please put down the pitch forks and RELAX already. once the 14 days are up, and you want join Spartacus in his quest to get source, then by all means do so.
Wah. I want my ice cream sandwich! Stomping feet on the way back to my room. Slams door.
I don't get why anyone is taking this thread seriously. If i were HTC and I received some letter from a group of people demanding I release MY WORK earlier than I planned, IF AT ALL, I'd tell them to go buy a a phone from some other manufacturer. Id then sit back and watch my sales drop 1% and continue to enjoy the millions of dollars that continue to come in because we all know HTC makes great phones and a VERY small percentage of consumers would stop buying them even if HTC said they would NEVER release anything.
You guys act like this is some kind of public utility that small children are relying on to survive. HTC owes us nothing outside of what the warranties on their equipment provides for. Grow up already. If you aren't happy, buy another freakin' phone. Jesus.
To Whom it May Concern:
Many owners of one of your devices, the HTC Rezound, appreciate your recent release of the Android 4.0 "Iced Cream Sandwich" operating system. Our collective enthusiasm continues to drive the notions of both innovation and creativity; to that end, we would like to ask that you please consider expediting the schedule you have for releasing the kernel source code for this operating system. While it is true that several previous devices developed by your company (and others) have taken a series of months before release, our community overall asks that you consider accelerating your kernel release schedule so that we may further engage in our community development efforts.
----------------
That is how educated, articulate adults speak and write. I would suggest replacing the existing petition text with something similar to what I wrote above; that way you won't sound like a 15-year old self-entitled douche-canoe, and will have the added bonus of most likely getting more than 142 signatories.
partizan1981 said:
To Whom it May Concern:
Many owners of one of your devices, the HTC Rezound, appreciate your recent release of the Android 4.0 "Iced Cream Sandwich" operating system. Our collective enthusiasm continues to drive the notions of both innovation and creativity; to that end, we would like to ask that you please consider expediting the schedule you have for releasing the kernel source code for this operating system. While it is true that several previous devices developed by your company (and others) have taken a series of months before release, our community overall asks that you consider accelerating your kernel release schedule so that we may further engage in our community development efforts.
----------------
That is how educated, articulate adults speak and write. I would suggest replacing the existing petition text with something similar to what I wrote above; that way you won't sound like a 15-year old self-entitled douche-canoe, and will have the added bonus of most likely getting more than 142 signatories.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nicely done. Sales 101. Not to sound hypocritical but I'm going to steal the term douche-canoe from you for my personal use
Sorry my English is a little bad lol.
wmaudio said:
I don't get why anyone is taking this thread seriously. If i were HTC and I received some letter from a group of people demanding I release MY WORK earlier than I planned, IF AT ALL, I'd tell them to go buy a a phone from some other manufacturer. Id then sit back and watch my sales drop 1% and continue to enjoy the millions of dollars that continue to come in because we all know HTC makes great phones and a VERY small percentage of consumers would stop buying them even if HTC said they would NEVER release anything.
You guys act like this is some kind of public utility that small children are relying on to survive. HTC owes us nothing outside of what the warranties on their equipment provides for. Grow up already. If you aren't happy, buy another freakin' phone. Jesus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're joking right? You're talking as if HTC is the number one manufacturer when even RIM outsold HTC so far in 2012. That's bad. HTC was doing bad so they had to shake things up, did the One series with Sense 4 then just said "Meh..." to their other devices.
See, that's the thing. You say they owe us nothing when, by the GPL, they do. They're supposed to release the kernel source and haven't. Why? Give me one good reason why they haven't released their source code. They have nothing to gain from this situation other than customers getting pissed off which can be a PR nightmare. Trust me. There are over 25,000 users of ViperROM. HTC's better off to just give us what is rightfully ours before it turns into a giant headache for them.
Chyrux said:
See, that's the thing. You say they owe us nothing when, by the GPL, they do. They're supposed to release the kernel source and haven't. Why? Give me one good reason why they haven't released their source code. They have nothing to gain from this situation other than customers getting pissed off which can be a PR nightmare. Trust me. There are over 25,000 users of ViperROM. HTC's better off to just give us what is rightfully ours before it turns into a giant headache for them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. Such an entitlement mentality. That is the problem with a lot of people. You owe me.... I deserve it. No!
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
Im requesting source for lollipop kernels for all Samsung US variants that Samsung has neglected to post. I would appreciate if other users would do the same by emailing Samsung via this link. Be sure to mention GPL requires source to be posted in a decent amount of time. Since lollipop has been out on some devices for some time I think this warrants that it be posted already. Especially with some variants (Verizon and AT&T note 4 specifically) having dm-verity activated as a kernel feature, effectively enabling write-protect on system thus stopping the ability of custom roms.
Thank you.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Done.
Got this email immediately afterwards.
------------------------------------------------------------
[SAMSUNG OSRC COMMENTS DELIVERY NOTIFICATION]
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thanks for your continuous interest in our products.
We received your request on OSRC.
We will provide the response ASAP, if your request is related to FOSS.
(This site is just for providing source code of FOSS Software we have used in our product.
You could contact with other types - ex. firmware - on your local Samsung support homepage.)
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Open Source Release Center
E-mail[email protected]
* We received the request at [2015-05-25 04:28:41].
Surge1223 said:
Be sure to mention GPL requires source to be posted in a decent amount of time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
? There's no grace period at all, they're not allowed "a decent amount of time" to post source code. Simply put, any distribution of the code must be accompanied with the source. Not by the source being posted a day, week, month or year later, "accompanied." Anything else is a violation of the GPL.
These companies which don't simultaneously release source code are playing with fire. GPL2:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Almost any one of the kernel copyright holders (there are what, thousands of them?) could bring an infringement case which could terminate all rights to use the kernel. That means Samsung would no longer be able to use the Linux kernel in any product, forever. There's no mechanism to get the right to copy and distribute back. They're basically betting the future of their company on the patience and goodwill of others when they play games with not releasing source.
Someday, they are going to get sued, and when they realize the true ramifications of violating the GPL, some developer is going to get a multibillion dollar settlement to drop the case, and Samsung will start meeting its obligations.
Submitted request
Submitted a request too.
Submitted.
Request submitted.
Sent from my 4G LTE AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 4 via Tapatalk
Done
mike.s said:
? There's no grace period at all, they're not allowed "a decent amount of time" to post source code. Simply put, any distribution of the code must be accompanied with the source. Not by the source being posted a day, week, month or year later, "accompanied." Anything else is a violation of the GPL.
These companies which don't simultaneously release source code are playing with fire. GPL2:
Almost any one of the kernel copyright holders (there are what, thousands of them?) could bring an infringement case which could terminate all rights to use the kernel. That means Samsung would no longer be able to use the Linux kernel in any product, forever. There's no mechanism to get the right to copy and distribute back. They're basically betting the future of their company on the patience and goodwill of others when they play games with not releasing source.
Someday, they are going to get sued, and when they realize the true ramifications of violating the GPL, some developer is going to get a multibillion dollar settlement to drop the case, and Samsung will start meeting its obligations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the distribution of the binary can be accompanied with a written offer to provide source upon request. This is the part that carries no time requirement unfortunately. So what everyone here is doing is making a written request to provide source.
This is the paragraph that allows for that:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or
But for the most part you are correct and Samsung has in the past fulfilled their obligations by releasing kernel source before the OTA even started...that was one way we knew an OTA was coming. They have gotten sloppy probably due to so many devices still being updated. Too many manufacturers play it loose with the GPL.
Request sent
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using XDA Free mobile app
KennyG123 said:
Actually the distribution of the binary can be accompanied with a written offer to provide source upon request.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and that's exactly what I was referring to. There's no need to get pedantic when explaining it, it's pretty straightforward and the intent is clear. Samsung obviously didn't include the source with the OTA. So, that's where the required "written offer" kicks in. (I don't see where they've included a written offer, either. But, I'll assume it's buried somewhere.) Most people fulfill the requirements by making a written offer of "go to this website to download source." As long as you can do that, it meets the requirement to
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, if you can't download the source, then it's not a valid offer, and the requirement is not being met.
The only situation in which "reasonable time" could play is when fulfillment is by physical media (e.g. by post).
mike.s said:
Yes, and that's exactly what I was referring to. There's no need to get pedantic when explaining it, it's pretty straightforward and the intent is clear. Samsung obviously didn't include the source with the OTA. So, that's where the required "written offer" kicks in. (I don't see where they've included a written offer, either. But, I'll assume it's buried somewhere.) Most people fulfill the requirements by making a written offer of "go to this website to download source." As long as you can do that, it meets the requirement to
But, if you can't download the source, then it's not a valid offer, and the requirement is not being met.
The only situation in which "reasonable time" could play is when fulfillment is by physical media (e.g. by post).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry if I sounded pedantic. I do not believe there is malintent from Samsung...just sloppiness and things getting lost in the cracks when the company gets bigger and bigger.
I tore the GPL apart but could not find the phrase that used to be there...to be "released in a timely manner"...perhaps it was another site that translated the GPL into layman's terms...not sure. Hopefully this will make Samsung realize their oversight.
KennyG123 said:
Sorry if I sounded pedantic. I do not believe there is malintent from Samsung...just sloppiness and things getting lost in the cracks when the company gets bigger and bigger.
I tore the GPL apart but could not find the phrase that used to be there...to be "released in a timely manner"...perhaps it was another site that translated the GPL into layman's terms...not sure. Hopefully this will make Samsung realize their oversight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Blasphemy. Samsung and Verizon are up to shenanigans again.
Formal request for new moderator to replace Kenny please.
:sly::sly:
I kid I kid
Surge1223 said:
Blasphemy. Samsung and Verizon are up to shenanigans again.
Formal request for new moderator to replace Kenny please.
:sly::sly:
I kid I kid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey
Got a response on this with a link but there is no code for COC4.
Mobile Phone SM-N910A_NA N910AUCU1COC2 SM-N910A_NA_LL_Opensource.zip announcement Inquiry Link
Mobile Phone SM-N910A_NA N910AUCU1ANIE SM-N910A_NA_KK_Opensource.zip announcement Inquiry Link
Mobile Phone SM-N910A_NA N910AUCU1BNK3 SM-N910A_NA_KK_Opensource.zip announcement Inquiry Link
These are what are shown. I submitted a request again for COC4.
It's ridiculous that the source code hasn't been released yet. While we're at it, the provided .configs are almost always NOT identical to the production .configs either. More recent kernels may have the config.gz inside the zImage, so always check, just in case. Luckily it's usually only a few causes, namely enabling Source Module Checksum or Modversions being enabled under Enable Kernel Module Support. There's a 4-byte CRC value created from the source of which it was compiled, and a SHA1 hash of the module. I personally feel that disabling kernel modules on a production device is necessary, but it's unfortunate you have no choice in the matter.
Side note:
They should separate Kernel and Platform source so I don't have to download 8 times the size of the kernel itself. On top of that, It's hard enough to connect to their circa-1990s' calculator of a server, and download at AOL 56k speeds.
ROFLMAO
That said, I submitted as well. I got a crap ton of errors(it not liking my name). But I finally got a sent message...
Verizon in a few words: Amazing connections, horrid policies.
I wish I could go to T-Mobile, but the bill is the same and there isn't much of a T-mobile signal here. Only 3G.
@Surge1223
Spoiler
[SAMSUNG OSRC COMMENTS DELIVERY NOTIFICATION]
Dear Customer,
We are pleased to provide you the source code of SCH-I545.
You can download the source code from the site below: http://opensource.samsung.com
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Select URL below to evaluate satisfaction for our reply.
http://opensource.samsung.com/satis...ilId=D7F24AD4B2482EB14BBC54938C2FC9D39AFDD239
----- Original Message -----
Sender : Me
Date : 2015-05-28 14:25:18 (GMT+09:00)
Dear Samsung;
I have recently noticed that you have not released the Source code for certain variants of the Galaxy s4 that have received the update to Android 5.x Lollipop, more specifically the Verizon and ATT variants. I request for the source to be posted as otherwise this is a GPL violation. I specifically request for the Verizon SCH-i545.
Samsung Open Source Release Center
http://opensource.samsung.com
HAVE FUN. You probably already downloaded it and started to mess with it
XxD34THxX said:
@Surge1223
Spoiler
[SAMSUNG OSRC COMMENTS DELIVERY NOTIFICATION]
Dear Customer,
We are pleased to provide you the source code of SCH-I545.
You can download the source code from the site below: http://opensource.samsung.com
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Select URL below to evaluate satisfaction for our reply.
http://opensource.samsung.com/satis...ilId=D7F24AD4B2482EB14BBC54938C2FC9D39AFDD239
----- Original Message -----
Sender : Me
Date : 2015-05-28 14:25:18 (GMT+09:00)
Dear Samsung;
I have recently noticed that you have not released the Source code for certain variants of the Galaxy s4 that have received the update to Android 5.x Lollipop, more specifically the Verizon and ATT variants. I request for the source to be posted as otherwise this is a GPL violation. I specifically request for the Verizon SCH-i545.
Samsung Open Source Release Center
http://opensource.samsung.com
HAVE FUN. You probably already downloaded it and started to mess with it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very cool! Ask and we shall receive.