What is the legality of posting ROMs? Some other sites are blocking me from posting my HP4700 rom to help a guy out who needs the original. They claim it is illegal.
So, If you don't mind I will post it here?
https://www.moriahsweb.com/ipaq.rar
FYI, this place is amazing. I am thinking about getting XDAII again just so I can use this site again. Granted the VGA of the 4700 is awesome but it is just not as fun as all playing with all the hacks and modifications of the XDA.
Any one have any input on the legality of posting ROMs? I am quite interested.
Hey, my first post too
It's a good question.
Although I only installed an official i-Mate ROM at the weekend I don't remember if there was a licence agreement to click through when I ran it.
My guess is that ROMs are copyrighted software not for redistribution but I look forward to seeing an informed response.
Well here is some of the EULA
The EULA specifically says "The SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold." which I interpret as if you have a license for your device then you are legally entitled to use the copy. Plus Section 3 also stated that if the "download is labled 'For Recovery Purposes Only', you may install one copy of such DEVICE Software onto the HP iPAQ as a replacement copy for the existing DEVICE Software and use it in accordance with Section 1 of this EULA."
So if I am posting for the specific reason to be able to restore a device to its factory state it should be legal right?
I'm an accountant rather than a lawyer, but I would ask 'which download' ?
Is that saying that you can upload here with specific label to say "For Recovery Purpose Only" or is it saying that the ROM you downloaded from the operator / manufacturer site already has that restriction ?
Does it say anywhere that you can redistribute to others for recovery purposes only ?
This question fascinates me, but I apologise for boring others
:roll: :wink:
Here is the actual paragraph
3. UPGRADES AND RECOVERY MEDIA
DEVICE Software. If the DEVICE Software is provided by the manufacturer separate from the HP iPAQ on media such as a ROM chip, CD ROM disk(s) or via web download or other means, and is labled "For Upgrad Purposes Only" or "For Recovery Purposes Only", you may install on copy of such DEVICE Software onto the HP iPAQ as a replacement copy for the existing DEVICE Software and use it in accordace with Section 1 of this EULA.
So this might be telling me that only the manufacturer can provide the Software? Maybe my providing the ROM falls into "other means".
Mostly I don't care if it is "legal" I am just trying to figure out what makes the other boards I posted on have a hissy fit.
I don't think so.
Nowhere does it give you permission to redistribute, which is why other forums worry about getting sued.
I don't care either but we all know how these companies operate.
Related
Would someone please post ROM files for Prophet, ie. ASERG's, JESTER's, and/or LVSW's or official ROMS as a torrent file in Pirate Bay (thepiratebay.org) They seem to be impervious to legal threats and subpoenas. Perhaps then, we can use that as the non official download place. Thanks.
Forgot to mention
Only if it doesn't break any forum rules or anything...
No no no. can't do that
I would suggest that a useful facility might be for those that made backups of the ftp before it went down let themselves be known discretely, so that those that need roms won't be left helpless.
V
This is a suggestion / request to the mods as well as an invitation to all site members to contribute any info they have on this.
At the moment there are no real viruses for windows mobile devices, only a few proofs of concept.
But I have encountered a few examples of supposedly normal commercial software that I really wouldn't want installed on my phone.
Example 1:
A while back a small company (who's name I no longer remember) sent a letter to all its customers threatening that the anti-piracy protection on their software will damage your bootloader if a cracked version of one of their apps is discovered on your phone.
Example 2:
It was reported a while back that Agile Messenger sent user names and passwords for all messenger services unencrypted through the net potentially giving anyone access to your accounts.
Example 3:
While reading the EULA for Opera Mini I discovered it sends users phone number and all their browsing data (cookies, history, cache) to the Opera ASA server basically spying on your internet activities.
Unfortunately all the threads dealing with these otherwise nice and useful apps have now moved deep in to site history so any new users or just someone who haven't been on the site for a while is likely to miss them.
My proposal is this:
Create a sticky locked thread, I think the general section would be most appropriate, so anyone visiting the site would be able to see the list of programs he might want to avoid.
Why lock the thread?
As I understand it moderators can still edit locked threads any time they want so there are two reasons to keep it locked from the general public:
1) To keep the list clear and easily readable.
I am sure many people will want to comment on the software even if it is just to say "how dare they do this?", but any comments / questions would be better off in separate threads.
2) To be fair to the software creators.
I think that anyone making a claim against a software should provide some minimum proof. Like the email quoted in example one, comm log dump or screen shots. At the very list confirmation from other users.
This site has a lot of impact on the mobile community and it would be a shame if a wrongfully accused software would suffer due to being publicized as damaging here.
http://review.cyanogenmod.com/#change,5677
This is an interesting patch to the CM7 repository frameworks base. If you scroll down and expand the comments you can follow the guys arguments on justifying such feature. Basically from what I understand this would allow you to spoof personal data to apps which may or may not request it. From contacts to SD card contents as well as phone IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number.
It's not a committed change but I wanted to see what the community thinks of having such feature. Personally I see all the reasons why this would open up a can of warms. What do you think?
I think in some other implementation this could be really helpful to the paranoid (like myself). However, I also think that those that are against it have VERY valid points. The community needs MORE widespread acceptance, not less, and something like this could cause major problems with Google, Carriers, Developers....
Sent from a bird cage, with a swing!
Correct me if I am wrong, but the intention is to spoof necessary data that an app might request that it doesn't actually need and to help prevent app force closes that straight up permission blocking causes. Like pandora requiring to read contact data.
Setting aside the other ramifications for a second... This is actually a good idea. It gives us power to not have to accept (for example) Pandora being greedy bastards.
Now the other ramifications are indeed severe. But for example, Swype. Why the hell can't I just buy it on the market?
I think arguing over it is a moot point. This cat is already out of the bag. We can't stuff it back in. This functionality is coming. Maybe not on Cyanogen, but it will be here for the masses soon. The greedy bastards that are trying to milk the system had just better deal with it.
Wow this thread could not have popped up at a worse time , what with all the NexusSense 0.3 users having trouble with their IMEI's.
But having read through all the comments on the change, i see why the CM team do not want to implement it, obviously this kind of change would piss off devs and carriers and of course google.
Yes it is a good idea for us users, but for CM's image and survivability , id say not having it is a sacrifice we need to make
First of all:
Wrong section.
Second: They won't add it anyway.
Some developers cried about it and everything.
dario3040 said:
First of all:
Wrong section.
Second: They won't add it anyway.
Some developers cried about it and everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I figured this is about a development of Android ROM and posted in "Android Development" section. Forgive me if there was a better place to post it in.
This is also not marked as abandoned (as of this post) and still up for debate in the open section of Cyanogenmod Gerrit section.
For devices without an IMEI because they don't have a cellular radio, such as the Nook Color, some amount of this is valid and regarded as highly valuable. While I don't condone being able to haphazardly change or spoof your IMEI, I do believe that for devices that don't have an IMEI that some measure should be taken to create a device specific IMEI that will persist between different ROMs and ROM installations. Unfortunately with no IMEI support for devices like the Nook Color, there is no persistent ID that can be used. As developers continue to use the IMEI as a "device stable" ID, we need to come up with a way to support devices that don't have such an ID, and perhaps generate a non-colliding IMEI from a has of their login information, or some other identifying metric that will persist between different installations. The TAC could be created to identify the device type, and then the serial number could be generated based upon some information provided by the user.
In short, outright spoofing is probably a bad idea, but something needs to be done for devices that don't supply these sorts of IDs.
Hi Everyone, long time reader, modder, flasher, 0 time poster:.
I just wanted to get a gauge on the community's attitude towards hacking a paid application. Not for the intent of making it free, but for the intent of making it work!
You see, There's an app out there called "Escort Live!". Don't get me wrong, it's a great app as it integrates with your radar detector and laser jammers while driving... but it's rife with issues that the company just hasn't been able to address... see the following forum for more information on that:
I can't outside link yet due to the post count, but you can find all of the issues on escort live! for android's forums. I'm sure you can google them.
So... I made a post to try and help the community out by decompiling the 2.04apk hosted on their site... not even their latest version... with Virtuous 10 Studios, and Informed the community of the Sloppy Dev work, and that I would try to fix the issues with our specific phones (Motorola based).
2 days after that post was made...
I get permanently banned. no reason given.
They then pulled the old .apk's off of their site, so I've conveniently uploaded it to mega upload so everyone can see the crappy dev work for themselves... again... can't post links yet, but if someone with a post count pms me I'll send it to them.
I don't have enough of a post count to make a dev project out of this yet either, but as soon as I do then I'll post the progress on of the project on github.
If anyone would like to join in the effort to give PAYING CUSTOMERS a functioning apk to use with their phones... volunteers are more than welcome, especially those with java / xml experience.
I have a wordpress site that I can't link here, but it's my first name Philip Last Name Cabibi at wordpress if you're interested in tracking the issue with the full links.
market link
From a technical standpoint the app is free (with premium subscription options) and I can only assume there's some sort of verification process for that subscription so as long as that's kept in I would think this is certainly acceptable though I'm not sure what your post actually said
did find this though (basically just talks about it and then links here and the blog) relevant post on his blog is here
@ University of Pi...
You are correct... It's a free app; however, in order to all the app to connect with your escort compatible radar detector, one must purchase a separate cord, and pay for a yearly subscription of about 79.95.
Full disclosure: the management at escort has been nothing but professional, and have extended the subscription of the beta testers for another year as a result of all the bugs.
The problem though is the lack of updates. Alot of us have invested alot of money into the app. Cost of Radar detector, Cost of the special chord, plus the cost of the subscription. New users, unfortunately, don't get the benifit of the extended subscription.
The point is... is that users of certain phones, paid for a product, and the product isn't functioning correctly. The reasons for this are the sub-standard programming of the devs. No notation on the methods in the smali files, poorly designed xml arrays, cryptic variable definitions, etc.
Personally, I feel as if the management have no control over the fixing of the problems, and are handcuffed, because the initial developer purposefully made the program extremely difficult for a new developer to come in and fix the issues, as a result of the poor structure of the program itself.
Anyway, glad to see you found those links... Thank you... didn't know that another thread was made requesting information about what happened to the original thread (they are correct, I in no way posted the entire source code of the program on their site) What I did was point out the flaws, and logcat results that tell a completely different story regarding the root issues effecting motorola devices than what the devs have told management, and as a result, what management has in turn relayed to the users.
Unfortunately, I can't follow up in the forum as I am permanently banned, but I, and many others, really just want the program to work correctly. It's an excellent concept and it's a shame that Escort is resorting to these types of tactics in an attempt to prevent the open source community from improving their product.
I'm sure even with the improvements, a subscription fee would still be required; however, the original concept of the OP was to convey the fact that it's possible for the open source community to bypass the "premium features".
I don't condone this; however, it's a difficult pill to swallow when faced between choosing the ethical choice.... paying the yearly subscription for a poorly functioning app... or sideloading a fully functioning app created by an open source community because the official developers aren't making any progress.
Would any other senior devs on this site wish to chime in on this?
You should have never been banned from there...but hey...no good deed goes unpunished right?
I've had EL for quite some time and it's irritating to no end to see how flawed it is. It's a shame that they won't welcome help and instead act that way toward people trying to do something good for them.
Hacking and posting an app that uses paid services is considered warez and will not allowed to be posted here nor will any help be given in doing so.
My friend has noticed a lot of (Mainland)Chinese websites mirroring files from xda and giving the wrong instructions and even selling some for a fee.
I ask all developers here to spread the word and combat such shameful behavior.
What you can do:
Spread the word
Put your name in your software
Put your name under the boot screen
Put official links (yours and/or xda) in your software and provide them with a notice on first boot
Make clear in your post the terms to redistribute your software and add a list of authorized re-distributors
...And more!