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.
Related
Hi all!
I'm an android developer, and I regularly read the official android-dev and android-porting lists, but on all the fan blogs and from lurking here, it seems that all the good development is coming from XDA-dev!
So why don't you guys do some patch submission? Features like auto-rotating browser and the transition animations should really, really be in the main source, but the official Android team have their thumbs up their asses in regards to UI/polished stuff.. (I bet they're too busy working on the lower level cellular stuff and the ARM-generating stuff like in the *flinger libraries).
So you guys should make some patch submissions over at (http://source.android.com/submit-patches)!
That way, the next RC will have all of these lovely features you guys have implemented.
((Or, alternately (but more ambitiously), fork the entire codebase. Strip out the DRM and add a framework for native code execution. Perhaps that's a pipe dream, though..))
Thoughts?
I think forking the Android source would be a very nice touch, if Google doesn't pull it together. We could still add on to stuff from the official code, but add on all the special stuff that Google refuses to (they've said they won't add the ability to change CPU speed, etc).
Oh, absolutely, there would be numerous advantages to having a fork. It should definitely be discussed! I'm afraid that Google may be trying to exert too much control on their platform in ways that we don't always want, so there is nothing legally to stop us from forking and maintain a more badass tree. GitHub could provide the hosting.
Of course, it might be a waste of effort. If you submit the badass patches, then the good features here go out into all the phones in the next versions. Work on the fork, and only the selected users who are able to flash their own phones can use it, unless some Chinese companies start using it or something like that.
Names?
XanDroid? I'd rather like to see Mandroid with in a slick black theme..
Well to me it seems like the only people doing cool things right now with android have rooted devices
So why cant you ***** a little on google lists to make them actually do some work. The Roadmap @ http://source.android.com/roadmap is a joke. Either they give us root or they start working imo. =)
Seanambers said:
Well to me it seems like the only people doing cool things right now with android have rooted devices
So why cant you ***** a little on google lists to make them actually do some work. The Roadmap @ http://source.android.com/roadmap is a joke. Either they give us root or they start working imo. =)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think that the release of the new unlocked Dev phones will change things?
Yeah it'll most probably shake things up a bit, however what about all those that already have a g1?
I for sure isnt buying a new phone to get root.
But even so, we're still talking about modifications to the OS and the packaged applications, which would be released in the next RC version, so even non-root users would get the features in the next update, along with anyone running Android on something besides a G1.
my .02
Id say submit some of the things found here and see what goog does with it, if they openly add these things that need root at this point and let xda dev participate in the OS with such submitions...then cool thats how open source works best, when anybody can add to the project, a phone OS utopia
If they ignore it then, a fork is the way to go but give google a chance to do the right thing first before, just leaving them in the xdadevs dust with a custom distro...
bhang said:
Id say submit some of the things found here and see what goog does with it, if they openly add these things that need root at this point and let xda dev participate in the OS with such submitions...then cool thats how open source works best, when anybody can add to the project, a phone OS utopia
If they ignore it then, a fork is the way to go but give google a chance to do the right thing first before, just leaving them in the xdadevs dust with a custom distro...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google has refused to add multiple features. They feel that they aren't necessary, or that your average consumer wouldn't want it (main thing I can think of atm is CPU speed).
If they don't add the features we request, simply because *they* don't like them, then a fork would get us exactly what we want/need. After we fork it, and the number of users using stock Android plummet, maybe they will listen .
I see a problem with forking... who says what is allowed and not allowed? That is the main problem. Now if you wanted to just add an app that would be one thing but there is not going to be an easy way to do this.
Gary13579 said:
Google has refused to add multiple features. They feel that they aren't necessary, or that your average consumer wouldn't want it (main thing I can think of atm is CPU speed).
If they don't add the features we request, simply because *they* don't like them, then a fork would get us exactly what we want/need. After we fork it, and the number of users using stock Android plummet, maybe they will listen .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given the number of G1s with modified fw installed compared to the total number of sold units, I somehow doubt the number of users is going to plummet.
IMHO it would be a needless fork unless some new or considerably modified features were planned. Better to just patch the functionality into the official builds, if at all possible.
I'm not convinced by that logic. There would be an important difference between a fork and patched versions of the firmware, as a fork would have a totally different design philosophy. Whereas Android is focused on speed (or whatever the hell they're concentrating on..but to be honest, I think they're dicking about over there), Mandroid could have more focus on polished features and low-level access. ((And! No DRM, and I'd like to see some more security features..ZRTP?))
Either way, I think it's really important for the success of the open future of phones that the open source community take and give back. There's no need for the back-and-forth like with, say, PSP-cracking as we have the source code and we are allowed to do whatever we like with it. If we just keep patching what they give us and keeping the modifications closed, then we aren't really in control.
As for project management, I'm absolutely sure there are people who are capable of maintaining an active open-source project such as this, as long as there is a well-thought out design philosophy. I'd love to be involved, if enough people are willing to give it a shot. But, first, it'd be easier just to submit patches.
Miserlou! said:
PSP-cracking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PSP cracking is insanely different. If you were in that scene, does my name look familiar ? Was net admin at toc2rta/malloc, admin of psp-hacks.com, worked with a lot of people on a lot of stuff that I barely remember as it was years ago .
But for the PSP, we were working with a system we knew nothing about. So yes, Android would be a lot simpler to work with. But if Google doesn't listen to us, it's not like it would really matter.
neoobs said:
I see a problem with forking... who says what is allowed and not allowed? That is the main problem. Now if you wanted to just add an app that would be one thing but there is not going to be an easy way to do this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is licensed by both the Apache Software License (do whatever you want with it) and the General Public License (do whatever you want with it as long as you make the source code available for others). We are certainly allowed to do this, but the problem lies with the G1 owners running the official RC30. They wont have the rights required to flash the image which leaves them out of the party.
2 words
The community(did I spell that right?)
Bhang
Datruesurfer said:
Android is licensed by both the Apache Software License (do whatever you want with it) and the General Public License (do whatever you want with it as long as you make the source code available for others). We are certainly allowed to do this, but the problem lies with the G1 owners running the official RC30. They wont have the rights required to flash the image which leaves them out of the party.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant who is going to the be decision maker of what features will be added... The Community as a whole? What about some that want it but only 25% of the community wants it?
neoobs said:
I meant who is going to the be decision maker of what features will be added... The Community as a whole? What about some that want it but only 25% of the community wants it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what project leads are for. And hypothetically when enough people are dissatisfied with the xda-dev fork they will go and create their own fork. Except I don't think there is any real argument yet to go and create an xda-dev fork in the first place. Forking an operating system meaningfully is not a weekend project for a single person.
I have said it before, let's give them a bit more of a chance, a fork isn't something a guy can do in a weekend.
So let's see what happens in RC3X, the next release will give folks a bbetter idea of where their heads are at. If enough of the community is unhappy there will be a fork
Bhang
So I figured I would document my attempts at getting HTC to release the CDMA Hero kernel source. Hopefully everyone else can document their attempts as well.
Today, 12-30-09, I contacted HTC through email and was in conversation with a gentleman named Tony. He informed me I should call them. I called them and spoke with a gentleman named Fam. After being on the phone for a half hour he informed me that the CDMA kernel was licensed under the Apache license. Obviously this did not make sense so I asked why the GSM kernel would be licensed under GPL and CDMA under Apache. He stumbled over his words, not giving me an answer. He said to check developer.android.com for the information he found but I wasnt able to. I think it's a bunch of BS. Anyone else have better or different experiences?
I emailed them a few days ago & got:
Code:
Dear,
The HTC Customer Service Representative that has been handling your message would like to know if your question has been successfully answered. You can reply to or close your question by visiting:
http://ContactUs.htc.com/wFrmMailLogin.aspx
Ticket Number : [ 09USCW52ENA000753 ]
If you do not respond to or close your question within 15 days, it will be closed automatically.
Sincerely,
HTC
We are unable to receive replies to this email account. Please visit us at www.htc.com if you have any questions or need further assistance.
New Response From [ Mario (North America Support (Tech)) ]
Dear Customer,
Thank you for contacting HTC!
Unfortunately HTC has not released the source code for the CDMA Hero. We have no information on future releases.
We suggest checking our website periodically for updates.
Sincerely,
HTC Support.
Customer Information
Name
Telephone
Email Address
Country United States
Inquiry Information
Inquiry Type Technical Support
Inquiry Description I would like to request the kernel source for the CDMA based Hero. I know the GSM based Hero source has has been released, but I want/need the CDMA based source.
Issue Date & Time
2009/12/23 08:03
chuckhriczko said:
After being on the phone for a half hour he informed me that the CDMA kernel was licensed under the Apache license. Obviously this did not make sense so I asked why the GSM kernel would be licensed under GPL and CDMA under Apache.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Linux kernel is most definitely NOT licensed under the Apache license, obviously. I believe much of Android is, however. Perhaps Tony referred to the kernel by mistake.
In my opinion this is getting rather serious. Code is to be available upon request IMMEDIATELY once a shipping GPL-based binary is out (for sale or otherwise). It is not optional for HTC as it is not their code! They are build a business on the backs of thousands of developers who gave their hard work to Linux in good faith. Apart from this copyright infringement, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of an open source OS, leaving us to hack our phones device-by-device rather than making changes that can benefit everyone.
I have written to them several times before...and I must admit that my most recent contacts have done away with the please's and thank-you's. I think chuckhriczko is right to start documenting our contacts.
Where did all the GSM people send their complaints to?
where do we send these complaints?
I'd like to join in.
surrealbliss said:
where do we send these complaints?
I'd like to join in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HERE
This silly game is pissing me off
If the GSM Hero source is released it makes no sense for the wait. I e-mailed HTC and will post when I receve a reply.
I just e-mailed them with the help from 5tr4t4s comment here (just changed a few words around).
Here is my e-mail to them
I am writing you in an attemt to get the linux kernel that should be available upon request, BY LAW!!!!
I believe much of the Android os is, however the Linux kernel is most definitely NOT licensed under the Apache license.
In my opinion this is getting rather serious. Code is to be available upon request IMMEDIATELY once a shipping GPL-based binary is out (for sale or otherwise). It is not optional for you(HTC) as it is not your code! You are a business built on the backs of thousands of developers who gave their hard work to Linux in good faith. Apart from this copyright infringement, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of an open source OS, leaving us to hack our phones device-by-device rather than making changes that can benefit everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If and when i get a reply i will update with their response.
this is what i got.
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
WTF?!?
justinisyoung said:
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
gu1dry said:
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah... i was wondering if that guy even read what he linked to. probably googled some random **** and just linked it.
gu1dry said:
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wtf is wrong with them. Its like pulling teeth with these people to get what we paid for
I am not a legal person at all so I'm not going to debate if what they are doing is legal or illegal.
Buuuttt.. i do want to add my opinion. From my experiences with linux and gpl and whatnot.... I think HTC should have the right to keep the portion of code they worked on closed source. Show what they modified but not how exactly they modified it.
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world. I belive you should willingly open your code, but not be legally forced into doing so.
There are plenty of companies out there that release what they use in a very similar fasion, roku and apple to name a few. They don't release the source of the portion they modified but they tell you what they modified.... and post the source of what was modified, *before* the made the changes.
http://www.roku.com/support/gpl_rdvp
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/iphone-312/
unless you're a lawyer.... making claims or demanding something from a big company like this... I belive alot of people will be kind to know that you're probally just talking out your butt. No offence to anyone that stands behind open source.... but I hear alot of backyard courtroom talk like this in my field of work and I just smile and nod the entire time, and take heed no to take anything they say too seriously.
If you make a claim, expecially when it comes to legal stuff, make sure you bring it with the quotes references & citations of where exactly someone is breaking the law.
justinisyoung said:
this is what i got.
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
WTF?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So it looks like they said the same thing to you as they said to me. "Philip" contradicted himself saying that the kernel is HTCs closed source code (which it is not) but then goes on to say that Sprint must release the kernel? If it's closed source why would Sprint have it? Because it's not. I actually went the other route to avoid the Sprint issue. I told the guy I had a Droid Eris and asked for the kernel knowing full well it is the same kernel for both phones. The guy avoided the Sprint issue but still held onto the "closed source" bs. So with that it appears they will never release the source code. If this is the case what legal action could we bring against them. I love HTCs phones but, being a linux guy, it disgusts me how they are trying to benefit from the open source movement but not give back. It's like if Canonical didnt release Ubuntu's source code. It's international law!
If these attempts don't get resolved this could be something the eff might get involved in. Just a thought at least.
http://www.eff.org/
Bnick007
johnsongrantr said:
I am not a legal person at all so I'm not going to debate if what they are doing is legal or illegal.
Buuuttt.. i do want to add my opinion. From my experiences with linux and gpl and whatnot.... I think HTC should have the right to keep the portion of code they worked on closed source. Show what they modified but not how exactly they modified it.
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world. I belive you should willingly open your code, but not be legally forced into doing so.
There are plenty of companies out there that release what they use in a very similar fasion, roku and apple to name a few. They don't release the source of the portion they modified but they tell you what they modified.... and post the source of what was modified, *before* the made the changes.
http://www.roku.com/support/gpl_rdvp
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/iphone-312/
unless you're a lawyer.... making claims or demanding something from a big company like this... I belive alot of people will be kind to know that you're probally just talking out your butt. No offence to anyone that stands behind open source.... but I hear alot of backyard courtroom talk like this in my field of work and I just smile and nod the entire time, and take heed no to take anything they say too seriously.
If you make a claim, expecially when it comes to legal stuff, make sure you bring it with the quotes references & citations of where exactly someone is breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With more commercial OSS licenses such as BSD and Apache. But GPL is a viral license of sorts. If you add to the kernel your derivative work automatically becomes GPL, its designed this way for this very reason.
I'm just speaking about the Kernel.
Basically what you need to ask for is the modifications done to the Kernel that falls under GPL. You are NOT interested in the OS as a whole but just want the kernel source for the CDMA Hero as the GPL dictates.
More info here.
johnsongrantr said:
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what it means, actually. Go read the GPL.
And after some research I'm doing the reference you did not provide, "Go read" isn't really a solid argument. But you are all correct it appears.
"the underlying Linux kernel is licensed under version 2 of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPLv2)"
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
"The GPL is an example of a powerful copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to"
"GPLv1 said that any vendor distributing binaries must also make the human readable source code available under the same licensing terms"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
"the biggest change in version 2 was to introduce a "Liberty or Death" clause - the clause that says if somebody uses a patent or something else to effectively make a program non-free then it cannot be distributed at all"
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript.en.html#liberty-or-death
ok so I wrote HTC and this is what I said, I would like some feedback before I send it, let me know what I should change:
Let me start off by stating that I love the new Hero that I have, You all have done a great job in producing this phone.
Now let me get to the point of this email. HTC chose to make and develop an android phone, when doing this HTC has accepted to the current licensing laws. Now I know that you (HTC) will probably respond that your version of android is licensed under Apache2. Whether or not it is, does not make a difference, as I am not asking for HTC's source of their distribution of android, I am only asking for the kernel source, which falls under the GPL licensing no matter which way you look at it. Let me give you source to look at.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING:
Now in section 2B of the GNU Licensing Terms and Agreements it states:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
Section 3B states when distributing the kernel (which you did when you sold the cellphones) you must:
"Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code"
Now whether or not HTC wants to distribute the kernel source, does not matter; By law you are required to release your KERNEL source. So we (the owners of the CDMA SPRINT HERO) will give HTC ten days before we make this issue publicly known, which could lead to.... Well we all know what it could lead to.
Thank you for your time,
We hope you will make the right decision,
Samuel R. Barthelemy
One of the thousand CDMA HERO OWNERS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wasupwithuman said:
ok so I wrote HTC and this is what I said, I would like some feedback before I send it, let me know what I should change:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is good man. It is does the whole good cop bad cop thing by being nice yet firm and you let them know within ten days we would do something. Here is the thing though. We need to make sure we do something after ten days if they don't do anything. Can anybody actually make something happen in ten days? Because if we tell them that and nobody does anything and we dont do anything then they will just see these emails as idle threats that simply clog their inbox.
For those familiar with Ziggy's work, he finally compiled a kernel for the Thunderbolt. It is a beta kernel so there will be bugs, so test it out. For reporting bugs please comment on his website. He is a great kernel dev. Please donate to him if you like his work. I am in no way affiliated with Ziggy, just wanted to spread the news.
UPDATE: My previous thread was closed because of a direct link I provided. I decided to create a new thread just for discussion purposes and bug tracking. You can google "ziggy471" to get to his site for the kernel. You can also google the name of the latest kernel update for the link.
Latest Kernel Update:
Beta Kernels 10 Apr 11
Running BFS kernel, and getting the best battery life I've ever experienced. HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND.
Last thread was closed because ziggy is not following GPL and is not posting his source, which is required. XDA cracks down hard on people who do not follow GPL.
nemesys504 said:
For those familiar with Ziggy's work, he finally compiled a kernel for the Thunderbolt. It is a beta kernel so there will be bugs, so test it out. For reporting bugs please comment on his website. He is a great kernel dev. Please donate to him if you like his work. I am in no way affiliated with Ziggy, just wanted to spread the news.
UPDATE: My previous thread was closed because of a direct link I provided. I decided to create a new thread just for discussion purposes and bug tracking. You can google "ziggy471" to get to his site for the kernel or use the pic attached for reference. You can also google the name of the latest kernel update for the link.
Latest Kernel Update:
Beta MECHA Kernel 6 Apr 11
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't get it...
cabagekiller said:
Last thread was closed because ziggy is not following GPL and is not posting his source, which is required. XDA cracks down hard on people who do not follow GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct and I spoke to Ziggy on this issue and was told when his kernel is stable enough he will release his source.
adrynalyne said:
You don't get it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whether I get it or not, I think his kernel deserves a forum for discussion. Thank you for your 2 cents.
I agree, my battery life is amazingly good.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA Premium App
His new test ones are out.
ridobe said:
His new test ones are out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah and it comes with a script! lol
Anyone else's phone running super hot with the new kernel that was released today? Mine is just too hot to touch almost...thinking about going back to the kernel before this update if it doesn't change soon.
Thunderbolt Rooted!
andrew53517 said:
Yeah and it comes with a script! lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have access to a computer all the time (or very often). Is there a way to copy/paste that script into the init.d folder through Root Explorer (or another app) instead of having to push it with ADB? Thanks in advance for any help!
Edit: Nevermind I figured it out. Having random restarts with the Kernel though so I'm reverting back to the BFS 4-6-11 kernel. That one was rock solid and the only issue was the proximity sensor.
I have his 4-10 BFS, what are you suppose to do with the script and why?
Going by what Ziggy said on his blog, the script is used to lower voltages/save a lot of power. I didn't have good luck with the kernel/script combo or just the kernel itself. It ran super hot and I was getting random lockups and random reboots on even the stock clock frequency. I moved back to the 040611 BFS kernel since the only issue I had with that kernel was the proximity sensor. The 040611 kernel also had insanely good battery life (or at least for how I use the phone, it did).
LSUstang05 said:
Going by what Ziggy said on his blog, the script is used to lower voltages/save a lot of power. I didn't have good luck with the kernel/script combo or just the kernel itself. It ran super hot and I was getting random lockups and random reboots on even the stock clock frequency. I moved back to the 040611 BFS kernel since the only issue I had with that kernel was the proximity sensor. The 040611 kernel also had insanely good battery life (or at least for how I use the phone, it did).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. It locked up on me too and ran super super hot. Reverted back till fixed.
Thunderbolt Rooted!
nemesys504 said:
Whether I get it or not, I think his kernel deserves a forum for discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
LSUstang05 said:
Going by what Ziggy said on his blog, the script is used to lower voltages/save a lot of power. I didn't have good luck with the kernel/script combo or just the kernel itself. It ran super hot and I was getting random lockups and random reboots on even the stock clock frequency. I moved back to the 040611 BFS kernel since the only issue I had with that kernel was the proximity sensor. The 040611 kernel also had insanely good battery life (or at least for how I use the phone, it did).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mine didn't lock up, but it was warm all the time (even when i wasn't using it) and had insane battery drain, like 40% in 2 hours. i reverted to 4-6-11 kernel and all is well again
edit: this is obvious to xda regulars, but noobs should download & flash the MECHA kernels for Tbolt. all other roms are for other devices. if you flash your new Tbolt with an EVO rom, you will be a very sad panda
Where is the source for this kernel?
jlevy73 said:
Where is the source for this kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has been asked several times, so I figured i would jump in and share what I know...
I speak to Ziggy almost daily when helping him debug stuff and he has spoken rather openly about this. He's not playing games or avoiding the issue and is going to post his sources and patches soon. There are one-and-a-half reasons he hasn't so far:
The half reason: There are some voltage issues and frankenstine tree problems that are causing some non-booters that need to be fixed before a public release can be considered safe. Now, the reason this is a "half reason" is because some may argue that he still needs to release it under GPL terms even though it's a beta, while others would argue that HTC doesn't release their betas under the GPL until they are safe either. If they did, HTC would have dropped their source 6 months ago, but they didn't. So it's an argument of where you stand semantics. I'm not telling you where to stand on that one - make up your own mind. However, it is worth noting that Ziggy himself never started a TB kernel thread SPECIFICALLY for the reason that he did not want to violate XDA's terms in accordance with the GPL. Other users started their own Ziggy threads independently
The bigger reason: He is currently in talks with an intellectual property attorney in order to retain personal IP rights on some of the code he has personally written, and was advised by that attorney to not release his full source under the GPL since that source would include the code he is trying to secure. Once that is taken care of, he will release the bulk of his source and patches, while retaining a few flashable patches for himself of his own personal code to further enhance the kernel - assuming he gets that all worked out with the IP lawyer.
That may frustrate some people, while making others very happy. I can also tell some of the devs are getting anxious since they see Ziggy added/changed/removed over 35,000 lines of code in the TB kernel and their eyebrows raise a little and they want his source so they can see what he's up to I don't know where you stand on the issue, nor will I tell you which side to take. I already have his source so quite frankly I don't care either. Again, I'm just the messenger sharing what I know. Don't hate on me if you don't like the info above - it's not my call
You'll all get the source/patches soon enough
i can't say i blame ziggy for doing things this way. it's his kernel, he has the right to do what he wants with it, including seeking intellectual rights. i'm glad he made his kernels available for the rest of us to try. more rom/kernel options is good for all of us
IANAL but sounds like walking a fine line...any of the witheld patches will be designed specifically for the purpose of merging with GPL licensed code. I'm sure the attorney knows his stuff, but at minimum doesn't seem in the spirit of AOSP.
eschelon said:
This has been asked several times, so I figured i would jump in and share what I know...
I speak to Ziggy almost daily when helping him debug stuff and he has spoken rather openly about this. He's not playing games or avoiding the issue and is going to post his sources and patches soon. There are one-and-a-half reasons he hasn't so far:
The half reason: There are some voltage issues and frankenstine tree problems that are causing some non-booters that need to be fixed before a public release can be considered safe. Now, the reason this is a "half reason" is because some may argue that he still needs to release it under GPL terms even though it's a beta, while others would argue that HTC doesn't release their betas under the GPL until they are safe either. If they did, HTC would have dropped their source 6 months ago, but they didn't. So it's an argument of where you stand semantics. I'm not telling you where to stand on that one - make up your own mind. However, it is worth noting that Ziggy himself never started a TB kernel thread SPECIFICALLY for the reason that he did not want to violate XDA's terms in accordance with the GPL. Other users started their own Ziggy threads independently
The bigger reason: He is currently in talks with an intellectual property attorney in order to retain personal IP rights on some of the code he has personally written, and was advised by that attorney to not release his full source under the GPL since that source would include the code he is trying to secure. Once that is taken care of, he will release the bulk of his source and patches, while retaining a few flashable patches for himself of his own personal code to further enhance the kernel - assuming he gets that all worked out with the IP lawyer.
That may frustrate some people, while making others very happy. I can also tell some of the devs are getting anxious since they see Ziggy added/changed/removed over 35,000 lines of code in the TB kernel and their eyebrows raise a little and they want his source so they can see what he's up to I don't know where you stand on the issue, nor will I tell you which side to take. I already have his source so quite frankly I don't care either. Again, I'm just the messenger sharing what I know. Don't hate on me if you don't like the info above - it's not my call
You'll all get the source/patches soon enough
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do appreciate the quite thorough explanation regarding the rationale of not releasing his kernel source. While GPL is a discussion for another day, the whole thing for me is by definition, Android is AOSP. I'm seeing a disturbing trend not amongst developers so much but from manufacturers re-writing the rules on being Open Source. Take Motorola for example. They release all phones with a hardware lock on their bootloaders. Poor folks using the Atrix have to go through a ridiculous side loader app to download anything not from the market. Perhaps Google should start a new branch called the Android Unopen Source Project
Anyway, I don't know all the specifics behind Ziggy's IP issues so not knowing the full extent of the facts I won't comment on that. I respect Ziggy and appreciate what he brings to Android. I just don't want to see developers close their source code because if Cyanogen took that some approach where do you think the development community would be today?
Post removed
Hy guys and gals, i have done some digging on the nVidia developers forums and have found a thread requesting info on if/when nVidia plans to drop the source for the HAL that we need so our amazing developers can get A2DP working
I'm posting the link below, maybe if enough of us go into the thread requesting this info nVidia will comply
EDIT: nVidia updated their forum and our topic was tossed into the archive and not brought over, to remind them that this is still a valid issue I have re-created the thread, please if you want to try at getting A2DP to work with non OTA based rom's go voice your opinion
New nVidia developers Forum
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using XDA Premium App
Link not working, im all for it a2dp would make cm7 perfect.
This would be great! Then I could finally buy a Bluetooth Stereo Headset.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App
I'd love to see this happen, but I don't see it anytime soon. Nvidia has been historically bad at releasing their source code.
fcisco13 said:
Link not working, im all for it a2dp would make cm7 perfect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Link worked perfectly fine for me, both on my TF101 earlier and just now on my g2x.....not sure why it didn't work for u
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App
Lets get this moving
Sadly, they aren't required by any license to release their source code, which is why I have no idea if/when it'll ever happen. Their drivers for their own chips are definitely not gpl, so bugging them will not put any pressure on them at all.
lawsuit??? Lol worked for lg...
It'll never work. You can't sue them because they won't release their source code. That's like saying "Hey let's sue microsoft because they won't release the source to their kernel." It's their property, and they can do what they like with it. If android didn't run on top of the linux kernel, which is gpl licensed, I'd almost guarantee that no vendor would ever release the source for it.
Not trying to be a buzz-kill or anything, I want the source code as much as anyone else. But no amount of threatening lawsuits, bugging them through email, forums, or phone calls will change their minds. If they intend on releasing the source, they'll do it in their own time, if not, we're SOL.
mstrk242 said:
Sadly, they aren't required by any license to release their source code, which is why I have no idea if/when it'll ever happen. Their drivers for their own chips are definitely not gpl, so bugging them will not put any pressure on them at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then it is probably a bad move to use Nvidia hardware on an open source platform like Android.
Spread the word...
I was kidding about it, we can wait for 2.3.4-5 ota...
It may be Nvidia's right to keep it's code proprietary, but I can't imagine buying another Android device with one of their chips in it unless something changes.
We are evolving very fast, I don't know if nVidia can assume the Windows GPU market will always be there for them. If Android dominates the next decade or so the way that Windows did the last then manufacturers are obviously going to have to adapt or perish.
No way, there will always be a market for high end video cards on windows, simply for gaming if nothing else. Sure, they may not make it in the cell phone market (although I doubt that too, just because they are very good with hardware, they'll work out the kinks.)
You have to remember, the vast majority of people who buy these phones don't even know what a rom is, let alone the fact that they can customize it. The modding community is a small (albeit very vocal,) minority.
Also, please no one read between the lines on these posts I've made. I'm no insider, I have no information what so ever from nvidia. I'm really only basing these educated guesses based on my experience with nvidia and linux drivers. They may very well open the source, but I'm just trying to say don't hold your breath, and screaming at nvidia is absolutely pointless.
bump for updated link
None of the companies release their proprietary drivers to the public. It is their right as the intellectual property owner to keep it secret. The only thing that is open source is the Android Kernel and the AOSP files. Everything else is proprietary and not made public. Even Google Apps are proprietary and Google never releases the source code for them. Also, only members of the Open Handset Alliance can license them and legally put them into their rom builds. Any efforts contrary to this (i.e., getting companies to release proprietary driver source) is simply futile and a waste of time. They could care a rat's ass about hackers. If you don't like it don't buy their products, but then you have to stop buying everyone's product as they all have proprietary code that is never released.
Spyvie said:
Then it is probably a bad move to use Nvidia hardware on an open source platform like Android.
Spread the word...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right-on here. I will be looking at this when I eventually upgrade down the road, and will probably select a lesser device with different hardware (as long as the manufacturer doesn't ship it with a locked bootloader - lol).
Real open source is the only way to go. But as many posters have mentioned. we represent a very small group of potential customers - most whom would never dream of messing around with their devices.
gaww said:
You are right-on here. I will be looking at this when I eventually upgrade down the road, and will probably select a lesser device with different hardware (as long as the manufacturer doesn't ship it with a locked bootloader - lol).
Real open source is the only way to go. But as many posters have mentioned. we represent a very small group of potential customers - most whom would never dream of messing around with their devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you want to get the MI Millet MIUI phone when it is available in your country. It is a dual core 1.5Ghz Scorpion processor and they expect you to update it weekly with new MIUI builds. It is an awesome device for the low price point (1,999 Chinese Yuan or about $300.00 US).
http://product.xiaomi.com/features.html
Go salivate.
jboxer said:
None of the companies release their proprietary drivers to the public. It is their right as the intellectual property owner to keep it secret. The only thing that is open source is the Android Kernel and the AOSP files. Everything else is proprietary and not made public. Even Google Apps are proprietary and Google never releases the source code for them. Also, only members of the Open Handset Alliance can license them and legally put them into their rom builds. Any efforts contrary to this (i.e., getting companies to release proprietary driver source) is simply futile and a waste of time. They could care a rat's ass about hackers. If you don't like it don't buy their products, but then you have to stop buying everyone's product as they all have proprietary code that is never released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not refuting what your saying but why do other phones seem to not have this problem if they all do this. Only tegra 2 devices have development ****ed because of this.
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
They deleted my account. WTF?
xsteven77x said:
Not refuting what your saying but why do other phones seem to not have this problem if they all do this. Only tegra 2 devices have development ****ed because of this.
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd imagine its for the same reason our devices and other tegra devices can only play the tegra games hence incentive tobuy a tegra phone. I think if they released code then any dev could hack their phone and play tegra games without having a tegra chip. Just a hunch.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA App
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?