Database Info

If you have twitter....tweet to HTC so we can get our Kernel!!

I'm just putting this in a new thread so that everyone can see it without having to accidentally come across it in the Hero Source Attempts thread... Some other users have realized that if everyone who has a twitter account messages HTC through twitter, it becomes bad PR for them because everyone sees it, and they are more likely to meet our demands at a speedier pace.
If you really want lots of cool ROMs and lots of options, we gotta get that dang kernel, and this seems to be the best tactic so far. Supposedly it worked in getting the GSM kernel. SO GET TO WORK PEOPLE! START TWEETING/Messaging THROUGH TWITTER @HTC!!
Here is the original post by another user:
I personally believe that these two methods would work fastest. If they get 1000 emails, no one hears about it. But if they get 1000 tweets, or an article on Engadget, it's bad PR. This is basically what happened with the GSM Hero:
slashdot article - tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/1720224/HTC-Dragging-Feet-On-GPL-Source-Release-For-Hero-Phone
acknowledgement - twitter.com/htc/status/4928377685
compliance - twitter.com/htc/status/5071201112
admission of responsibility - twitter.com/htc/status/5071514606
(sorry, I've been a member for almost 3 years but this is my first post... can't post links)
I tweeted the following, please retweet or write your own similar: @htc When can we expect to see the CDMA (Sprint) Hero kernel source code? It's been 3 months, this is ridiculous! #gplviolation

I posted a tweet, lets hope this will push them to at least acknowledge the requests.

posted a tweet too hope it helps

Posted a Tweet, i pray engadet will pick up on this.

lol been posting at least 2 tweets a day for the last 3 days. glad to see others are joining in.

Yup. Tweeted
@HTC come on, it's long past the weekend.CDMA Hero sources please.#HTC get your act together #GPL #Violation #CDMA #Hero #Sources
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to try and get as many tags in as possible...
EDIT: Well, a search for #gplviolation on twitter is certainly interesting! (Try it...)

if you search htc you get a lot of people asking how to update to 2.x reply tweeet them to get the word out if you can.

Done! I hope we see something soon.

Done! Tweeting twice a day.

If you post a tweet regarding this, please be sure to include @htc, @sprint, and add the #gplviolation hashtag for tracking purposes.

tweet sent!

Does it really matter much if we get the kernel? As I understand it, there's a load of closed-source proprietary software running under the hood on our devices.

It depends. If HTC compiled proprietary code into the kernel itself, they're between a rock and a hard spot. Under the GPL, anything physically compiled into the kernel MUST have its source released. If HTC licensed proprietary camera drivers from anyone (Qualcomm, most likely) under terms that forbid them from disclosing the source, it's *their* problem to worry about.
IMHO, if that's the situation HTC is in, the best thing they could do to at least get everyone off their back would be to just go ahead and release their best 2.1 internal build (officially, for testing with the Android Emulator, since they can't officially condone rooting) as a "developer's preview". If they did, the necessary files would be ripped and built into a working 2.1 heroc distro within days, if not hours, and pretty much everyone would forget about the source for now & give them some breathing room for a few months.
As I understand it, even if HTC's 2.6.29 kernel had bugs, as long as those bugs weren't with msm_camera itself, we could use THAT 2.6.29 kernel to bootstrap newer builds of 2.6.29 (kind of like how Microsoft used prerelease versions of Visual Studio 2010 and Windows 7 to build Windows 7 itself). The problem now is that there's a literal hole in the 2.6.29 kernel that we can't fill, because we have neither the include file's source nor a compiled binary to drop in place.
Now, it's important to remember that we can't actually demand the 2.1 kernel yet under the GPL, since it hasn't actually been released yet. I'm only mentioning that as an *alternative* that would satisfy pretty much everyone for now, to give HTC some constructive alternatives to consider if releasing the full 1.5 kernel source for heroc is, in fact, completely out of the question due to licensing problems arising from msm_camera. Regardless of whether or not HTC can release the source to msm_camera for heroc, they can obviously redistribute 2.6.29 binaries built from it... and one of those binaries would be more than adequate for our purposes right now.

miamicanes said:
, it's important to remember that we can't actually demand the 2.1 kernel yet under the GPL, since it hasn't actually been released yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I realize you are referring to a CDMA-specific kernel (I thought 2.0 and after would be GSM and CDMA ready?), but the kernel for 2.1 HAS been commercially released. It's running on the Nexus One. Demanding the code under GPL is perfectly reasonable.
I mention this because this problem is now beyond any specific device. The manufacturers and carriers are, in my opinion, abusing the GPL and we ought to have a united front on that fact.

5tr4t4 said:
I realize you are referring to a CDMA-specific kernel (I thought 2.0 and after would be GSM and CDMA ready?), but the kernel for 2.1 HAS been commercially released. It's running on the Nexus One. Demanding the code under GPL is perfectly reasonable.
I mention this because this problem is now beyond any specific device. The manufacturers and carriers are, in my opinion, abusing the GPL and we ought to have a united front on that fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The source for the kernel compiled for the Nexus One, which uses completely different hardware, is (or must be) available. HTC does not need to provide it, as they are not the company selling the device - Google is.

^^^ Just to add to what he said, the kernel for the Nexus One also lacks the compiled-in driver for the CDMA Hero's camera.
Here's an example to illustrate why the GPL places so much practical importance upon the availability of ALL source used to build the kernel... and why it's generally accepted that proprietary binary kernel loadable modules are OK (at least, among pragmatists like Linus). Suppose the maker of your PC used a proprietary NVIDIA chipset with no public documentation, and shipped it with Ubuntu Linux on the hard drive. However, suppose they compiled the video driver directly into the kernel.
Anyone who bought the computer would be put in a needlessly bad position -- unless someone reverse-engineered the chipset, you wouldn't be able to use any distro of Linux not officially blessed and released by the computer's maker. You might be able to use a slightly newer build of Ubuntu if someone did a binary diff on the newer kernel and pulled out the metaphorical duct tape. You might possiblybe able to get away with using the old kernel in a newer distro (enjoying some bugfixes in the other programs besides the kernel itself). You might even be able to diff a newer build of Linux on a newer, but similar, computer released by that maker that they happened to ship with a newer kernel. But you'd never really be able to build your own kernel the way God and Linus intended, because the kernel and proprietary video driver would be inseparable. If you tried, the compiler would complain because it was missing a very, very important #include file -- the proprietary video driver.
On the other hand, suppose the manufacturer bundled the proprietary video driver as a loadable kernel module (.ko file). NOW, things change significantly. Richard Stallman might still grouse because you don't have the source to the video driver, but in utilitarian terms, you're much better off than you were in scenario #1. Although you're still dependent upon the manufacturer for a newer video driver, because it's physically separate from the kernel itself, you can build your own newer, better, and different kernels whenever and however you'd like. As long as the low-level interface between the kernel itself and the kernel module doesn't change on your platform, the two are sufficiently abstracted from each other to allow one to change without affecting the other.
IMHO, the most disgraceful part of this whole thing is that we theoretically have phones running an open platform, but we're still reduced to ripping binary images and tacking them together with metaphorical duct tape, just like we were with Windows Mobile. If anything, it's gotten worse. At least Windows Mobile didn't have to be rooted, and the newer versions generally didn't break the previous version's device drivers. Sigh.

miamicanes said:
^^^ Just to add to what he said, the kernel for the Nexus One also lacks the compiled-in driver for the CDMA Hero's camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, I understand this. I was making the point that the fact that 2.1 has a commercial release means the we can demand the code under GPL. Shouldn't we be aiming for a unified android kernel source with GSM and CDMA support, adding binary drivers/libs (or setting device-specific compile flags) as needed? Nexus being controlled by Google (who seems to be releasing their modifications immediately on git) might be a starting place for this de facto Android.
I'm simply advocating for thinking beyond our own personal devices.

Holy shut!!! Welcome to the age of technology.... **** with us and we will tweet Ur ass to death. Lol. It's an all Twitter offensive. Were declaring Twitter war on HTC until we get source. ROFL

@5tr4t4: well, it was more for the benefit of others who might stumble on this thread and aren't quite sure why it's such a big deal
I think what Jonnythan was saying is that there's no need to get the source to the Nexus One's kernel from HTC, because you can download it right now directly from Google.
As far as platform neutrality goes, we'd be 99.9% of the way there if HTC would just move the proprietary stuff out of the kernel proper and into loadable kernel modules so they'd simultaneously be in compliance with the GPL and not making our lives needlessly difficult by making us jump over hurdles that shouldn't be blocking our way in the first place

miamicanes said:
As far as platform neutrality goes, we'd be 99.9% of the way there if HTC would just move the proprietary stuff out of the kernel proper and into loadable kernel modules so they'd simultaneously be in compliance with the GPL and not making our lives needlessly difficult by making us jump over hurdles that shouldn't be blocking our way in the first place
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they were to move some stuff to binary *.ko's they'd most likely move all non-boot-essential hardware support out there, which would actually make things much, much more challenging for us. That way they could have a "universal" kernel (and GPL source tree) that is used across devices, and each device just has its own *.ko's. They'd only have to release one (fairly useless) tarball for GPL compliance. Be careful what you ask for.

HTC Linux kernel source code request (2.1 update)

Since HTC has not yet provided the source code for the updated kernel (2.6.29-bc0d2cff) that ships with the 2.1 update, I'm putting up this thread to document my requests that they provide it. Once again, they're giving me the run-around.
Request 10USCW22ENA001190
Per the terms of the HTC Legal Agreement on my HTC CDMA (Sprint) Hero, Section 4 (End User License Agreement), I am formally requesting the source code for the Linux kernel 2.6.29 as installed on my phone. I have installed the recent Android 2.1 upgrade, and it does not appear that HTC has published the required source code yet.
As the Linux kernel is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), anyone distributing this software must also provide the source code used to compile the software. Any delay in doing so is a violation of copyright.
The specific version of the software being distributed in the HTC Hero (Sprint) Android 2.1 update is as follows:
Kernel version:
2.6.29-bc0d2cff
[email protected] #1
Thank you for taking the time to post this source code, and making sure that HTC is fulfilling its open-source (and copyright law) obligations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

First reply from Philip (North America Support (Tech))
Hello Chris, Thank you for taking the time to write us. I understand that you need the source code for the 2.1 version of the Sprint Hero. Rather than getting into a semantics debate of the device being under the Apache License or the GPL, I will just state the facts as they are. The department that you are in contact with is HTC Technical Support; we do not have any part of posting the source code, nor do we have information as to when it will be posted. However, when the source code is available you will be able to find it at developer.htc.com. Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us again. You can find additional support at support forums at community.htc.com. There is also a customer satisfaction survey for you to take if you are interested. Philip HTC Technical Support www.htc.com www.twitter.com/htc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and my response:
There is NO issue of "semantics" regarding the licensing and source code request I made. The Android platform is licensed under the Apache Software License, while the Linux kernel that the phone runs on is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). I made a very specific request for the Linux kernel source code, which is unarguably licensed via the GPL.
This is very clearly documented in HTC's Legal Documents bundled with the phone. Also clearly documented is the fact that this is the department I am to contact in order to be provided with the source code. Please read the Legal Documents bundled with the HTC Hero (Sprint), consult with a Supervisor, and let me know whether or not HTC will be complying with their End-User License Agreement. If the terms of the End-User License Agreement differ from what is provided with the phone, I would like a copy of the new document.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"

Nice dude!
Way to push them using their own EULA.
I look forward to seeing how this unfolds

Legal department would probably respond better to pressure.
18. Notices. HTC may give you all notices (including legal process) that HTC is required to give by any lawful method, including by posting notice on the Site or by sending it to any email or mailing address that you provide to HTC. You agree to keep your email and mailing addresses current and to check for notices posted on the Site. You agree to send HTC notice by mailing it to HTC’s “Address for Legal Notices” which is:
HTC Corporation
No. 23 Xing-Hua Rd.
330 Taoyuan City
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Attn: Legal Department
With a copy to:
HTC America, Inc.
13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98005
Attn: Legal Department
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

My original response to this thread was going to be "not another thread like this...", but then I read your replies to them. I like how you're handling it so far and how you're using their own rules against them

Welcome to round 2 everybody! Hope it doesn't take as long as it did last time. How bout we send them a transcript of the last kernel request thread.

I am glad to see this going again. Like Mrbiggz said, maybe it wont take as long this time.

They released the Eris source like a week after 2.1 was pushed out to their phones.
Wonder why the delay.
-------------------------------------
Sent from my Android phone.

Prolly cause they are pissed about last time. We were relentless and now they want to make us pay for it. LOLOL

cmccracken said:
For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...

jporter12 said:
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.

I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.

fortune82 said:
I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't take full credit for this approach. The last go-around, I repeatedly had a member of the Google Android team suggest that I "read the legal docs" on the phone. I think I finally caught what he was saying between the lines.

In reality the haven't released the code to us because there is a giant sectionof comment in the kernel source that says. and I qoute - "... this line of code is horribly written and would allow for a buffer over run kernel exploit for elivated privledges (i.e. ROOT/TOOR) if a hacker happens to notice the null pointer called *thisIsNotAnExploitLoopHole ..." It then goes on to show the code that can be used to exploit it, but that got lengthy.

@OP, very well put. Let's hope for a 2.1 Kernal release very soon.

Well looks like its going to be another battle with them to get this out, I'm in again and will post the responses that I revive.
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App

We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.

cmccracken said:
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha. Something I did not know about that made me look like a total newb... Oh wait, I AM newbsauce!
I'm with Kcarpenter in that they wouldn't want to let it out now to give the devs here access to an exploit that woudl give us root!

ricersniper said:
We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see it happening until after it's rooted.

Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights.

Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face shakedown or shutdown
Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face shakedown or shutdown
Last week I read about an Android licensing issue that I wasn't previously aware of. It's a pretty serious one, and it's not that hard to understand. The short version is that
rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;
this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without which Android can't run; and
as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.
At first sight it may appear unthinkable that things could go so wrong with the distribution license for the very foundation Android was built upon. But I did my research and the above conclusions are just consistent with legal positions taken recently by two of the most renowned Free Software organizations -- the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) -- in another context involving GPLv2 (and software embedded in devices), the so-called BusyBox lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 1:09-cv-10155).
Just like those organizations forced a number of companies (most recently Best Buy, previously some others including Cisco and Verizon) to pay up, the situation surrounding most Android OEMs could become quite uncomfortable if any Linux copyright holders driven by greed or other motives team up with copyright lawyers (such as on a contingency basis) and enforce their rights. There are thousands of Linux kernel contributors besides Linus Torvalds. In some cases, it would probably be easy to just replace the code they contributed if they seek to enforce their rights, but in other cases, it would certainly take longer than someone's ability to obtain a preliminary injunction somewhere on this planet.
Click link to look at the legal issue more closely.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html
Does not sound too good...

Sensationalist bull****.

Hmm now thats interesting.

Doesn't this mean the OEM's will have to stick to vanilla android or release their modifications? Or is it not that simple? I read about the apache liscense with google and GPLv2 but im not quite sure I understood that part. Can anyone clearify?
Well from what I got it seems that google aquired motorola with good timing.
EDIT: So the problem with google and the apache license was that they never commented the proper permissions in their code, correct?

No, there ARE no problems with the licensing, and even Linus himself has said there are no issues. The kernel is licensed under GPL, and the kernel code is available. The user space itself is licensed under Apache and Google have no requirement to release the source for ASL code.
This guy is nothing but a huge Android troll and is well known for being so.

Kernel GPL violations
FloatingFatMan said:
No, there ARE no problems with the licensing, and even Linus himself has said there are no issues. The kernel is licensed under GPL, and the kernel code is available. The user space itself is licensed under Apache and Google have no requirement to release the source for ASL code.
This guy is nothing but a huge Android troll and is well known for being so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The general conclusion is right (that is, most major vendors are complying with their GPL requirements, mainly because they aren't modding the kernel, and are - if somewhat reluctantly - releasing the config files). However it's not true for all. A substantial number of smaller manufacturers, often offshore ones, are modding the kernel source and config files and are not releasing the modded kernel source code and config files. Those are clear breaches of their GPL licence, hence those manufacturers are breaching copyright. Anyone selling or distributing those systems is at serious risk (and I for one hope that the Free Software Foundation goes after them soon - they may be offshore, but their business models would break if they were denied access to first-world markets).

So in plan English, What does that mean for consumers???
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

KRAZYADROIDMASTER said:
So in plan English, What does that mean for consumers???
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No more Sense/Touchwiz/OptimusUI?

Oh darn. No TW? That would not bother me at all! Haha. Bit this is sad.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app

I think the manufacturers not complying with the GPL are likely to fold when either the linux or free software foundations lean on them. It'll probably end up with the foundations getting a reasonable amount of money, and the manufacturers having to make sure that they comply (google "Cisco GPL" to see what I'm talking about). As a consumer, if your manufacturer was already complying, it won't make much difference. If they weren't, it will probably mean that a fair few apps that weren't available will become so, and the hardware will be easier to root and probably to mod.

Aren't bootloaders proprietary? I don't think that's under GPL.^

Bootloaders and GPL
alpha-niner64 said:
Aren't bootloaders proprietary? I don't think that's under GPL.^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi alpha-niner; bootloaders haven't been mentioned till now in this thread, so it's a bit of a red herring. But to take the bait: the bootloader itself is almost always proprietary. The manufacturers have no obligation to release it. Of course, unlocking it with a utility provided by the overall system developer (i.e. fastboot) seems likely to be legal unless you specifically agreed not to do so in your purchase agreement, as is completely replacing it with a bootloader that you have a licence for. Disassembling it is clearly illegal. Taking it off the system to mod it and putting the modded version back is probably illegal (the illegal action is making a copy for the purpose of modding rather than backup). On the other hand, in-flash patching of the bootloader doesn't involve copying, so can't breach copyright (it might breach a carefully written licence, I guess). And of course you would then be entitled to back up the patched bootloader. It's the order and direction of actions that's important here.
But more important, you are correct in implying that the problem with some systems lie in the bootloader itself. But the problems with many others lie in "proprietary" mods to the boot kernel and GPLed components of the initramfs, and "proprietary" mods to the running kernel and GNU utilities. They could readily be reversed or adapated if the mod sources were released as per the GPL. Not doing so is a clear GPL breach. These cases are legion.
It's also worth noting that some of the worst offenders are disabling kernel modules and building drivers directly into the kernel. Whatever may be the case with loadable kernel modules, built in drivers are clear derivative works of the kernel, and thus are also subject to the GPL. In many cases, the drivers are for third party components: so the manufacturers not only breached the GPL in these cases, they very probably breached their agreements with the component vendors as well. Vendor X, who supplies manufacturer Y with a component and the proprietary driver for it, is likely to have built in some contract protection against Y's actions leading to their driver becoming GPLed.
Best Wishes
Bob

annoying samsung...

I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
1. about 'ar6000.ko'
: source code of atheros chip set is not GPL.
We get BSD/GPL dual license from Atheros company.
We choose BSD license, so we do not have any obligation to publish source codeof it.
2. wpa_supplicant
Wpa_supplicant is also BSD/GPL dual license. (and we also choose BSD license)
________________________________________________________________
WPA Supplicant
==============
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Jouni Malinen and contributors
All Rights Reserved.
This program is dual-licensed under both the GPL version 2 and BSD
license. Either license may be used at your option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sadly, they seem to have failed to meet the conditions of the BSD licensing as well. I've sent them another message stating this:
Concerning the atheros AR6000 driver and the wpa_supplicant binary. In denying the making available source for both the ar6000 module and the wpa_supplicant binary, you state that you get both of these with dual GPL/BSD licensing and choose the BSD license. That is fine, however you failed to meet the terms of the BSD license. In particular, for both items, the BSD license states: " Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." You have failed to state your licensing terms and this disclaimer in reference to the above stated items in either the printed documentation or the legal licensing screen embedded within the settings app on the device. As a matter of fact, you've failed to provide any licensing notice for GPL or BSD licensing for either item.
Regardless, I'm asking for these items in order to attempt to FIX BUGS that have been left in the device. It's been well documented in the forums for users of these devices that the wifi chipset drivers are causing crashes, freezes, "sleep of death" situations, etc. Samsung's support has been EXTREMELY unresponsive in attempting to resolve these issue, and I'd be willing to bet that reports of these issue aren't even getting through to your development teams.
Therefore, I once again ask that you release the source for the ar6000 module and wpa_supplicant binary that you have NOT followed the licensing terms of (regardless of which license you've chosen.) Oh, and there's no licensing string embedded in the ar6000.ko module either. modinfo ar6000.ko reveals nothing (for the ar6000.ko module on the GT-P6210 with KL1 firmware.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I don't expect for Samsung to be responsive and/or helpful. I think the best that anyone can expect is that they release an updated firmware that includes the proper licensing information.
Gary

Check and mate Sir. I despise these OEMs. You GO gary. Whatever happened to opensource? What are they so afraid of?
Anything we can do to help, let us know. Even if it means just spamming their inbox.

It's not like I buy the tablet because it has such an epic driver....
I buy it for the hardware...
When your entire OS is practically open source... not open sourcing the drivers for the wireless chip seems like shooting yourself in the foot just because you can.

Thanks garyd9 for fighting the good fight.

When companies do stuff like this for critical things, it _really_ makes me want to spend my money elsewhere.
In regards to the SOD issue, I've noticed that quite a few honeycomb tablets have this issue or something similar to it. I've only personally seen it with Samsung branded ones (10.1 and 7.0+), but have heard similar issues with asus and and acer.
Perhaps its a honeycomb issue?
Gary

give em hell!

If you'd like to help, please click the link near the top of the OP to submit the article to the XDA portal. Perhaps if this issue is shown on the front page, and enough people notice, Samsung could be convinced to "choose" GPL over BSD.
Thank you
Gary

Did you get any useful /proc/last_kmsg dumps of SoDs? Enabling wifi may only be making a difference because of the wakeups.
That said - I am completely shocked that Broadcom's drivers are open source and the ar6000 driver isn't. I've lost a lot of respect for Atheros AND for Samsung over this. I can understand if it's BSD - but seriously, what trade secrets could Samsung have in a freaking Atheros driver, and for something like this, what possible business reason could they have for witholding source for that ONE module? It's freaking stupid.
I was hoping that they'd start becoming more developer-friendly as a result of hiring Cyanogen, but they're being asshats at this point. They donated a device to Codeworkx (or someone else on Teamhacksung) to get CM7 ported, but have not given him a shred of assistance with the porting effort. Basically, trying to get "Supported by CyanogenMod" credits without ANY significant effort.
As much as I hate Sony - SE seems to be doing the best of any manufacturer in terms of supporting people doing platform-level development.
Edits:
You know, this is proving to be a clear and recurring pattern. I have never seen XDA get anything useful out of SamsungJohn for example, all he does is come over, tease us with something, and never follow up.
Over in the Captivate forums - he came in and posted that source code was out, then left without any followup - by the time he made this announcement, people had already found the source and were working with it - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=997098
He then came and teased us with the Samsung Developer Program - guess what, it provides NOTHING for developers doing platform work - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1392847 - John also didn't come and respond to any of the feedback
Prior to that there was the Samsung Developers Conference tease - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1291758 - nothing useful came out of this for anyone doing platform work. In fact, John just dropped off the face of the earth, I'm assuming that not a single person from XDA actually was brought by Samsung to the event, otherwise there would've been a followup/debrief post. Anyway, the "big announcement" was just the Galaxy Nexus release announcement. Big deal - that's a dev phone because Google forces it to be one, it's more of a Google product than a Samsung one.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=954896 (and many similar posts) - He just crossposted to a ton of forums saying something awesome was coming. Something awesome never came. The linked thread from many of his posts doesn't even exist. Actually, most of his 67 posts are just crossposting this tease - NOTHING ever came out of it.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-shows-affection-to-cyanogenmod-gives-its-devs-a-free-ga/ - As a PR stunt, Samsung threw a Galaxy S II over the wall to one of the CM developers. Without a doubt, Dan Hillenbrand (codeworkx) and Atin Malvaya (atinm) have not received any support from Samsung since Sammy threw a device over to them. The GSII is likely to be codeworkx's last Samsung device, he has become so frustrated with Samsung (Check his posts in the CM9 thread for I9100). Compare this to Sony Ericsson's effort here - http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/wp/2011/09/28/sony-ericsson-supports-independent-developers/ - They have given FreeXperia MASSIVE amounts of support, and it shows - http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/sony-ericsson-xperia-support
imnuts07 asked for some help regarding Droid Charge kernel source issues - https://twitter.com/#!/SamsungJohn/status/152835654303236097 - All he responded with was "how can we help" - no further response, imnuts07 didn't get anywhere until jt1134 gave him some pointers. (It turned out to be more proprietary module vermagic bull****...)
After all this, it's clear that with regards to platform developers, Samsung's intent is to do the bare minimum to meet their legal obligations with the GPL and no more. Even source code which they COULD release and have no valid reason for withholding is withheld if they are able to (such as the ar6000 module source code). I thought that the Galaxy S II was a step forward towards devices with 100% open source kernels, however it is clear that the GSII was just a fluke. I'm getting sick and tired of dealing with module vermagic headaches. I've spent at this point a few hundred hours of my spare time working on improvements to various products of theirs(maintaining kernels for three different products - Samsung Infuse, AT&T Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Player 5.0), and their consistent message back has been "go away, screw you, stop bothering us".

There may be a small bit of hope - I've been contacted by someone at samsung (perhaps due to your rant combined with my constant pestering on their open source website.) It isn't much, but the first line of collaborating is communication. They seem more interested in fixing the bugs than sharing code, but I'll take what I can get.
Oh, and the last_ksmg memory was corrupted when the one person who had adb, my kernel and root installed was able to check it. (As you know, the file won't be generated if header area for the ram console can't be found or is in bad shape.)
We'll see what happens, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the lunar new year coming up.
Take care
Gary

so how many people do we need to sue??

chrisrotolo said:
so how many people do we need to sue??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No lawsuits required. Although... that might explain the poor customer support from Samsung. Perhaps they've been afraid that Apple will sue them for patent infringement if they help a customer?
Not that I've ever had any GOOD support from Apple... mostly just clueless kids taking guesses. Even their so-called "geniuses" are mostly clueless.
In typing that, I realized that I'm probably one of the hardest people in the world to provide technical support to. When I have a question, it's only after I've exhausted the combined knowledge of myself and whatever google can provide... meaning the only good response from phone support would be "Would you like to cross-ship an exchange or wait for the repair?"

can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;

Speaking from personal experience ,when dealing (even on corporate high level) with Samsung there is nothing to gain but some weight due to stress.
They do care( up to a degree) about some customer relations and I've seen very nice, honest and helpful people there. But this is where it all ends.
The farther you go the worse it gets. Somehow they got this Apple attitude of profit and secrecy all over their structure. Apple calls themselves "innovators" to reason the secrecy, but Sammy are nowhere near. If I was to say they do act like copycat killers I risk getting called names- though they "adapt" almost everything, from design to business models. The Korean HQ has drawn quite strict regulations for the rest of the world.
We should remember that Samsung is a HUGE corporation. Android devices D&R is a tiny faction, ruled like in Middle Ages. They have the road map and they ever raise the stake every time. From my point of view, I sincerely understand those people for not jumping out with the source code. If you get paid 100k+, you don't help anyone but yourself. The decisions are not theirs. The people taking decisions don't give a rat's a55 about GNU or Linux, Minux or whatever. On top of that, there are some people that MIGHT have some influence in changing this policy ( the brown bearded, we call them) but those are the pride ridden SOBs.
You can read this from their mobile device history. They had to go into that, given the fact they build everything, from ships to home furniture. They got a share of the market because they were big and had some bright minds there. I know for a fact that, at the beginning, working @ cell phone dept was like sentenced to prison, only the undesirable but indispensable were sent there. Huh, those people left, some for Apple and some for others ( LG,Sony and Hyundai). Panasonic and Toshiba flops are some examples of how, in a degree, cultural burdens lead to a fail. HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce. On the other hand, Samsung can get a write-off for their mobile dept. without a blink. Bada is a perfect example. It was close to write off so they decided to make it open- see HP. They are too big to follow rules and beside being big, they hold the power few have- the power TO BEND rules, that is.
Getting any serious, development like help from Samsung is close to what ''Acts of God" are described in car insurance.

htc9420 said:
HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.

garyd9 said:
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't be so quick to judge him...

I just got the impression that the point of the post was to promote HTC while bashing everyone else.
Perhaps I spoke (typed) too soon. If so, I apologize.

No, the HTC thing was just one line, and what I perceived as some general comments on why some manufacturers (Panasonic, Toshiba) seem to have kind of flopped in the market.
There was definitive Samsung-bashing - but he's just joining with us in frustration.
Check PMs gary.

garyd9 said:
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Gary,
I'm the developer for a CyanogenMod port for the Samsung phone (GT-I5500). Samsung have released their source for an older version of the AR6kSDK, which I have put on github here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.0. This source is quite old, and doesn't support combo scanning, but it's newer than the ath6kl source release contained in the 2.6.35 kernel.
Last night I scoured the internet trying to find some newer source, and came across a release by Sony for one of their e-book reader products. I have uploaded the source onto github which you can check here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.1
The above git's description links to the location of the original source tarball on Sony's server, but if you prefer, just clone the git and checkout the first commit, as it's the unmodified source.
I have made some changes already to get the module to initialize properly, but at present it's not even scanning properly. Perhaps it will work better for you without modifications, especially if your device is not AR6003_REV2 (which is the revision on my phone).

chrisrotolo said:
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my friend mat has done this for me as he knows his stuff. it was a very powerful letter i must say haha. just waiting for a response

gary, thanks for all your efforts man! this is my first samsung android device, have they always been this bad in witholding source?

PHONE CARRIERS and GPL Violation (root access)

Have any of you really thought about the current Android root access situation?
Android, an operating system developed by Google, based on the work of Linus Torvalds et.al., distributed under GPL1,2 or 3 which supposedly protects it from being "owned" by any commercial organization and requires the source code for any modifications to be made available to the end user is currently owned by the commercial interests of the various phone carriers both here and in other countries. The very fact that we have to "hack" root access to a phone we purchased, based on a GPL operating system is, from my understanding, illegal. By locking the bootloader refusing to release sources and preventing the end user from altering an OS kernel they themselves don't own they have effectively ignored not only the legal purpose for the various GPL's but the entire spirit of Linux and it's open-source concept. They, meaning the various hardware MFG's, in conjunction/association with the various phone carriers, download free software written by Linus and other volunteer developers, edit it, compile it, add their own flavors to it then blatantly lock access to it by refusing to allow the end user to do the very thing Linux was interned to do, be modified to suit our whims. By not making the entire source code for the kernel and other FREE system utilities freely available aren't they violating the GPL?
Am I the only one who thinks Verizon, Motorola, AT&T, Samsung, HTC even Cricket and the others are just asking for a lawsuit? Isn't the very reason Google chose Linux upon which to base it's various and sundry data devices because it is open source?
The only possible reason they could have for preventing the development community from gaining operating system root access is so they can maintain a hand on your wallet. By writing apps that require you to pay double fees to use the same data connection you've already paid for such as "tether" is more than just dishonest, It's illegal. Not even the government is that dishonest.
comments?
UPDATED:
I stand corrected, the google source tree for the current kernel source is available from google. I haven't seen MFG specific source but I've been told it does exist and can be downloaded.

You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.

Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them. Nonetheless, there is no obvious GPL violation ongoing by any of the manufacturers you mentioned. Any GPL based code much be released as open source. And it is. All the major manufacturers have sections on their sites where you can download source of kernels etc. Proprietary code (e.g. Sense, TouchWiz etc.) can't be downloaded, but these aren't based on GPL code obviously. [If they were, the companies would be legally obligated to release source code].
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used. It doesn't have anything to do with security measures in place on the device on which code is run. Manufacturers are perfectly within their rights to prevent rooting or unlocking bootlaoders to the best of their ability (although most manufacturers want to offer bootloader unlocking facilities, and it is actually the carriers who object; that sort of low level access gives a greater chance of sim unlocking I guess?).

SifJar said:
Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whow, you almost sound hostile.
I mentioned Verizon, Cricket AT&T in the second paragraph. And I agree that it's the carriers that don't want an unlocked bootloader. It's a potential profit center for them.
As for the MFG being within their rights to lock access to a device they have sold to me, I disagree. What good is the source tree if I can't compile and install it? As the owner of a device that runs GPL based code they have nothing proprietary to protect by locking the bootloader, or any other part of the device. The eFuse technology wasn't devised or intended specifically to prevent the owner from running whatever they want on the device. It's intent is to protect the device, a network available device, from unwanted tampering, not to prevent the owner from using the device as he or she sees fit. And if the owner is provided the tools it's not an obstacle to it's use. But I feel the carriers and MFG's as well in their lust for those few extra dollars have gone too far.
As for the kernel source being available, I wasn't aware they were. I stand corrected. Still, locking a device to prevent the owner from using it to share his or her internet connection, a connection they have already paid for, is certainly dishonest and possibly illegal. In government parlance it's called "double taxation". It also makes no sense at all. The market contains apps that will share the 4G connection without the carriers proprietary $30 a month product. So, what are they protecting?

kmdub said:
You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you be more specific?
Perhaps it's interpretation?
When the GPL was originally written there weren't any device locks. It was a safe assumption that if you could compile the source you could execute it on your device. Things have changed a bit since then. What value is a source tree if I can't install and run it on the device it's intended to run on? At this point the source is simply a placation to satisfy the "law". What happened to honesty in the market place? What happened to integrity in business?

SifJar said:
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?

siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Locking is probably because if
"You want higher android version? Buy our new phones!"
Sent from my Ainol Novo7 Elf using xda premium

What you are asking for - that the carriers/manufacturers ship the phone unlocked so you can e.g. put your own build of the OS onto YOUR phone - makes perfect, reasonable sense.
However, the GPL doesn't cover that, and the carriers are most certainly not reasonable or sensible.
On the positive side, you do have an option: Nexus.

siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL doesn't state that the user must be able to use code compiled by themselves, just that the code has to be available so they could compile it themselves. Like it or not, this has nothing to do with GPL I'm afraid.

The carriers want their customers to use the devices buying their services, and don't want to be spending lots on supporting "modified" devices that break. At the end of the day it comes down the the $$$.
If you spend enough with them and don't cost them lots in support calls and device repairs, then I don't think they care really. But they need to set a barrier to prevent any git from accidentally bricking their phone. If you've got the balls and skills to root your phone then one can assume that your also prepared to take responsibility for the action to do that. If you want warranty repair, you need to atleast satisfy the repair agent that it's a fault with the device not the result of rooting and modding their phone and bricking it or damaging it as a result.
With regards to the GPL, I don't think the vendors or carriers are trying to end run it, and from what I've seen and read they are mostly working hard to comply with GPL terms.
If you've got clear evidence of GPL violations, then take that to the copyright holders of the infringed software and let them decide what to do about it. Only they have the right to claim remedies for violations of the license terms.
---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------
The carriers are only interested in making money, and damn the consequences. Customer services is about keeping the customer using their services not keeping the customer happy.
Just be glad for an emimently hackable device running floss, and a SDK that allows easy development of apps to run on it as well. It's better then we've ever had.
Linux and open source software running on a phone - a few years ago people laughed at the idea. Now their buying and enjoying them even if only for the carriers intended purpose.
Linux pervades our lives. I dare say there are more linux kernels running then any other at this point in time.