I noticed that kernels for android are released under GPL, and that anyone using them has to provide full source of the kernels built on them and such.
Isn't HTC and possibly t-mobile inviolation of GPL by not releasing the source for both the MyTouch 3G Limited Edition and MyTouch 3G v1.2 ?
I noticed there's a website to report such violations http://gpl-violations.org/ , and an email to send info about possible abuse [email protected] but would anything useful come of it?
Android is released under the Apache Licence, the kernel under the GNU GPL
OP is talking about the kernel, if there are no sources it's a violation.
Definitly GPL violation.
I don't think they're ready to release the Fender version kernel yet although I doubt it varies much from the Magic and is (I didn't actually check through the code) most likely a configuration you set before compilation. Also, having looked through the Tattoo source a while back, it seems void of apps and other userland components, just hardware related goodness so it won't be complete but should be compliant. Either way...
http://developer.htc.com/
enatefox said:
I don't think they're ready to release the Fender version kernel yet although I doubt it varies much from the Magic and is (I didn't actually check through the code) most likely a configuration you set before compilation. Also, having looked through the Tattoo source a while back, it seems void of apps and other userland components, just hardware related goodness so it won't be complete but should be compliant. Either way...
http://developer.htc.com/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You haven't been following all the MT3G LE/1.2 threads have you. There's at least a difference in wifi, bluetooth, touchscreen and headphone jack in terms of drivers. So even if you could manage to get a Magic 32A rom onto a Fender/1.2 and boot it, you wouldn't have a touchscreen, bluetooth, wifi or headphone jack, and there's also a number of other little issues. Also without the kernel source, no custom roms.
So clearly it's not a Magic 32A.
kbeezie said:
You haven't been following all the MT3G LE/1.2 threads have you. There's at least a difference in wifi, bluetooth, touchscreen and headphone jack in terms of drivers. So even if you could manage to get a Magic 32A rom onto a Fender/1.2 and boot it, you wouldn't have a touchscreen, bluetooth, wifi or headphone jack, and there's also a number of other little issues. Also without the kernel source, no custom roms.
So clearly it's not a Magic 32A.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Drivers are not GPL'd, these are closed source and the kernel is most likely the same as the mytouch 32B. Drivers are modules that are loaded by the kernel.
Jedipottsy said:
Drivers are not GPL'd, these are closed source and the kernel is most likely the same as the mytouch 32B. Drivers are modules that are loaded by the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is correct. nVidia and ATI do the same thing with their 3D video drivers on PC. There is no GPL violation here.
Still, I do wish HTC would release all their driver source so people could cross-port ROMs between the Dream/Magic/Hero/Tattoo
Super Jamie said:
This is correct. nVidia and ATI do the same thing with their 3D video drivers on PC. There is no GPL violation here.
Still, I do wish HTC would release all their driver source so people could cross-port ROMs between the Dream/Magic/Hero/Tattoo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... they still haven't released the kernel source
kbeezie said:
... they still haven't released the kernel source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The link I posted before has all of the ones that are released so far.
Modules are device specific but you should be able to grab them from the stock ROM, given the base number is the same as what you're flashing. Or you could compile them yourself with the sources for your target board.
I don't see any violation here since the kernel is probably the one released as Magic. And even if there is a violation i don't believe anything good would come out reporting it. The last thing we want is making things difficult for HTC and delay any development for their devices. Let's just enjoy what they provide us with as much as possible!
Even if the drivers are modules they would still be linked against the kernel and because the kernel is GPL2 linked in "infectious".
The GPL2 is first and foremost a distribution licence and the linking clause can be worked around by linking the drivers on the phone the first time you boot it up. I believe Ubuntu has some rather nifty tricks for doing this with their Nvidia and ATI drivers.
If HTC is in violation (which I doubt) they should most certainly be reported. If we don't point it out - someone else will and it will be trouble sooner or later.
HTC is in violation in GPL with the Magic 1.2
- Touchscreen drivers are in-kernel. There's no source for these
- While camera and bluetooth drivers are not in-kernel, they have a kernel interface which is not avaible at the moment, so another violation right there. (nVidia and ATI closed source drivers are in the same ballpark - they have a binary blob and a kernel interface that must be open source)
Also, the GPL states that you need to release the kernel so that it can be compiled, as in they can't say that some stuff is in one place, the other somewhere else. At the very _least_ they need to supply a working tarball, so that a compile of that will boot and be usable.
HOWEVER, the code might have been dumped to the aosp source here
I don't own that device so it's not exactly a thing i've been looking over. However, a code dump to the htc developers area is in order.
movikun said:
HTC is in violation in GPL with the Magic 1.2
- Touchscreen drivers are in-kernel. There's no source for these
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How sure are you about this? Don't get me wrong, but some proofs are needed.
- While camera and bluetooth drivers are not in-kernel, they have a kernel interface which is not avaible at the moment, so another violation right there. (nVidia and ATI closed source drivers are in the same ballpark - they have a binary blob and a kernel interface that must be open source)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NVidia at least provides the open source interface and there is no violation there, I'm pretty sure HTC does so otherwise the opensource foundation would already be suing them
Also, the GPL states that you need to release the kernel so that it can be compiled, as in they can't say that some stuff is in one place, the other somewhere else. At the very _least_ they need to supply a working tarball, so that a compile of that will boot and be usable.
HOWEVER, the code might have been dumped to the aosp source here
I don't own that device so it's not exactly a thing i've been looking over. However, a code dump to the htc developers area is in order.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At which point does GPL states that the sources should compile out of the source?
Also please note here that there are also many developers in these forums that haven't released any source for their modified kernels.
gbil said:
How sure are you about this? Don't get me wrong, but some proofs are needed.
Because all of the previous ones were in-kernel. I don't have one of these devices, but looking over the rom, i see no obvious .so in /lib that would be specific to the touchpad. If you can see something in the likes of /sys/modules/synaptics then it's in the kernel
NVidia at least provides the open source interface and there is no violation there, I'm pretty sure HTC does so otherwise the opensource foundation would already be suing them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It did, for all phones released up to the droid eris (newest code dump from them). Most probably the code from the old magic works, but again, i don't have it, so it doesn't concern me.
At which point does GPL states that the sources should compile out of the source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Paragraph 3, after section c. Here, let me show you
For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also please note here that there are also many developers in these forums that haven't released any source for their modified kernels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they modified the kernel more than in the configuration, they are required to give the source code IF ONE ASKS THEM TO. Most of them don't go that far, and the ones that do (cyanogen, wes garner to name a few) have their nice own githubs set up. There are some that don't (Sanpei, kingklick), but no one really cares. Please read the GPL carefully next time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC has been a pretty nice company regarding this site and devs. It's possible that if anything is missing that it was either not theirs to distribute, it was reasonable to assume you can find the sources or it was left to the AOSP to release-- specifically developers working on it. Is the Magic kernel on their site not enough? What else do you need?
enatefox said:
HTC has been a pretty nice company regarding this site and devs. It's possible that if anything is missing that it was either not theirs to distribute, it was reasonable to assume you can find the sources or it was left to the AOSP to release-- specifically developers working on it. Is the Magic kernel on their site not enough? What else do you need?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might be T-Mobile's doing seeing as the differences from the usual Magic was made specifically for T-Mobile.
movikun said:
Because all of the previous ones were in-kernel. I don't have one of these devices, but looking over the rom, i see no obvious .so in /lib that would be specific to the touchpad. If you can see something in the likes of /sys/modules/synaptics then it's in the kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so no proofs here really moving on
It did, for all phones released up to the droid eris (newest code dump from them). Most probably the code from the old magic works, but again, i don't have it, so it doesn't concern me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
moving on again
Paragraph 3, after section c. Here, let me show you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You haven't quoted the whole paragraph which states that some parts can be excluded from the distribution, maybe that it why it doesn't compile right out of the box?
If they modified the kernel more than in the configuration, they are required to give the source code IF ONE ASKS THEM TO. Most of them don't go that far, and the ones that do (cyanogen, wes garner to name a few) have their nice own githubs set up. There are some that don't (Sanpei, kingklick), but no one really cares. Please read the GPL carefully next time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate you are trying to make a point based on your own assumption here. Please check the threads where all these people were asked to give their source code and the most common reply is that they will do it someday somehow. Thus they DO violate GPL. So your last sentence doesn't really make sense. My advice, try to read better what I write and don't concentrate only on what you want to write.
Related
1. GPL-Violation
i think that movikun is right. I do not have rights to give my binary to anyone before I would post my sources.
and I am not sure if I have rights to determine the time I post my sources too.
see movikun's reply here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=6047882&postcount=2
so I decide to stop posting anything temporarily. thank you movikun, you teach me a lesson.
there are many devices running a .29 kernel now, they are all formal/official distributions but their sources have not open yet.
and after HTC release their .29 binary for 32A and HERO, if they don't release the sources immediately and you think it violate the GPL, please kick their ass. you will get what you want from there.
2. what I had done.
I did little things as someone said. that's TRUE. the most time I spent, were just looking into the sources, and try to understand everything. if one get enough understandings, there are not many things to do.
we have a working kernel, proper device specified files and configurations, you can find them all in msm-kernel .29/.32 and htc-kernel .27. everyone could make same changes what I did, if he have proper skills.
I had not took a look at others works, it's unnecessary and it may have noise with other's tweaks. so it doesn't make sense that I must post my sources just because they had posted theirs.
in fact, in a programmer's view, I never think these works are much valuable.
3 why I don't release my sources.
a) I know we won't get any contribution except different binary version if I would posted my patches at current. these binaries just make things more complicated.
though you can't get my sources, but if you take a look at android/HAL sources on Google's repo and Qualcomm's site, you will find something valuable about problems we faced.
but no one except me works on that. I don't believe in some people who named everything they can name. I won't work with them, or let them get my works so easily, unless they would have made some real contribution for our community.
b) after months I had posted my kernel, yongzi posted his patch. but how many people care about his work? everyone just remember something like XXkernel. what are these XXkernels?
I don't like that. I am not someone like yongzi. it's a game for me: I want to see if I do not post my patches, could these people get things done by themselves? I have shown what could be done at least, now it's our heroes's turn. they won't have any excuse to make their great named kernel staying with old radio anymore.
I am not aiming at users and ROM devs, I am talking about someone made their brand on a kernel they mashed up. if they named it as XXkernels, they should provide something special, but not a normal kernel with others patches.
even Ubuntu won't name the kernel they used as "UbuntuKernel", though they did much more. but it happened in our community. yes GPL don't prevent that, but I don't want these named kernels to include my work.
c) when I had posted the kernel binary, GPS could not work in some ROM. some people just said that the bug is in the kernel, and they didn't have the kernel sources.
now, we all get GPS working by replacing a different libgps.so, with same kernel binary.
how can you expect me to work with these people? they even don't want to understand anything, just try to mash things up and name it. if it doesn't work, all faults belong to others. and if you ask them something they have known, they never response. yes, they obeyed the GPL with their "release".
you could think they are good. but personally, I won't encourage their behaviors. the only way I can choose, just refuse to share my sources. if I have other choices, I won't be so disagreeable.
--------------
the .32 kernel is deleted temporary.
First off, let me commend you for coming clean, and at least trying to explain yourself, and not just getting angry and slurring those criticising. Thank you.
However, you seriously misunderstand the GPL. It is NOT up to you to decide if the license applies to you or not, dependent on how many changes you made. Normally i would just link to the license and scream "rtfl!", but I do NOT want this to turn into a flamewar. However, before i begin let me be clear, i am ONLY talking about the linux kernel. The rest of android is licensed under MIT, and sense bit are propietary. And it's only the Linux kernel i'm concerned about. So, let's go:
- You get the source from google/htc/motorolla/someone else. It is licensed under to you under the GPL. Which means you must abide by it, or not use the code.
- You modify it for you personal needs. This is permitted, and encouraged. You do not need to distribute anything, since it's only for you personal use.
- You've decided you want to pass along the binaries to your friend, with your changes. AT THIS VERY MOMENT you MUST give him the source code, and this is NOT NEGOTIABLE. He has every right to get the source code, just as you did when you got the source code from google, and thats because you made changes to GPL code. GPL is viral and it was deisgined SPECIFICALLY to do JUST THAT.
Also, another error that you make, is that you think that you can make a non-gpl release. Such a thing doesn't exist. You cannot change the license of GPL code. Once code is GPL, it STAYS GPL.
And yes, HTC was VERY late on numerous occasions with it's sources. We know that. However, that's not an excuse. Do you kill people just because there are murders on the world? Of course not, because they're wrong. GPL-Violations is already informed and working on getting the 32A 1.2 sources, and if it comes to that, they'll work on that too. However, that does NOT give you the right to whithold your sources.
To summarize : either you don't release the sources to the kernel, admit you're breaking the GPL, stop distributing your 2.6.29 and 2.6.32, or you put up a tarball/github somewhere, and the community will gladly accept it. The choice is yours.
P.S. This has made me, and a couple of other close devs feel extremely distastefull. The Magic scene is loosing developers to the N1 extremely fast, and it's just sad that we have to fight each other to play by the rules.
#teamdouche
sanpei, we all know what its like to work for this community. You release something and people blame you for any little bug and also never give you credit.
Despite this, I really hope you decide to post your sources, it would great to have and there are lots of people who could do great work with it. The point of this community to work together and not withhold your work because you want to be the only one with it.
Honestly, I just want to ask where did you get the information needed to create the AMSS 6355 patch or where did you obtain that code?
bcrook said:
sanpei, we all know what its like to work for this community. You release something and people blame you for any little bug and also never give you credit.
Despite this, I really hope you decide to post your sources, it would great to have and there are lots of people who could do great work with it. The point of this community to work together and not withhold your work because you want to be the only one with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just as an outsider who lurks but really does not post anything usefull. I find the majority of the posters are very thankful on this forum. The problem is, for every 15 thank you's the one flame will be heard more than all the gratitude.
I think you should just ignore the detractors and focus on the thankful people. Pissy people will always make a bigger fuss than a happy one, yet the happy ones are the ones you need to keep happy. The unhappy ones can go to hell.
movikun said:
First off, let me commend you for coming clean, and at least trying to explain yourself, and not just getting angry and slurring those criticising. Thank you.
However, you seriously misunderstand the GPL. It is NOT up to you to decide if the license applies to you or not, dependent on how many changes you made. Normally i would just link to the license and scream "rtfl!", but I do NOT want this to turn into a flamewar. However, before i begin let me be clear, i am ONLY talking about the linux kernel. The rest of android is licensed under MIT, and sense bit are propietary. And it's only the Linux kernel i'm concerned about. So, let's go:
- You get the source from google/htc/motorolla/someone else. It is licensed under to you under the GPL. Which means you must abide by it, or not use the code.
- You modify it for you personal needs. This is permitted, and encouraged. You do not need to distribute anything, since it's only for you personal use.
- You've decided you want to pass along the binaries to your friend, with your changes. AT THIS VERY MOMENT you MUST give him the source code, and this is NOT NEGOTIABLE. He has every right to get the source code, just as you did when you got the source code from google, and thats because you made changes to GPL code. GPL is viral and it was deisgined SPECIFICALLY to do JUST THAT.
Also, another error that you make, is that you think that you can make a non-gpl release. Such a thing doesn't exist. You cannot change the license of GPL code. Once code is GPL, it STAYS GPL.
And yes, HTC was VERY late on numerous occasions with it's sources. We know that. However, that's not an excuse. Do you kill people just because there are murders on the world? Of course not, because they're wrong. GPL-Violations is already informed and working on getting the 32A 1.2 sources, and if it comes to that, they'll work on that too. However, that does NOT give you the right to whithold your sources.
To summarize : either you don't release the sources to the kernel, admit you're breaking the GPL, stop distributing your 2.6.29 and 2.6.32, or you put up a tarball/github somewhere, and the community will gladly accept it. The choice is yours.
P.S. This has made me, and a couple of other close devs feel extremely distastefull. The Magic scene is loosing developers to the N1 extremely fast, and it's just sad that we have to fight each other to play by the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are right. thank you for this lesson
for discussions:
I think I have a workaround on this: if I claim a organization, and our members can get my binary, and this organization never distribute anything to the world out of it. then it will not violate the GPL.
wesgarner said:
Honestly, I just want to ask where did you get the information needed to create the AMSS 6355 patch or where did you obtain that code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you would think about how things work seriously.
sanpei said:
I think you are right. thank you for this lesson
for discussions:
I think I have a workaround on this: if I claim a organization, and our members can get my binary, and this organization never distribute anything to the world out of it. then it will not violate the GPL.
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you would think about how things work seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i have your binary and everyone on xda has it
we want the source for it and you refuse
you are a good coder im sure but you dont share the OSS spirit many of us do obviously - we just want everyone to share the code and give credit where credit is due
do you see people ripping off cyanogen for his kernel? they modify and give credit to cyanogen and this is the SPIRIT of the GPL (thanks for your work bcrook on cm kernel)
same with wes - thanks for all your work too wes - hopefully we can get NR kernel over from you soon - love your old radio version that was compiled
your above comment proves you just use FOSS and dont abide by the rules
dont release anything in the future if u dont have sources
thanks
edit: looking at your OP i dont believe you grasp OSS and the liscense
to release anything to the public can be done w/o source
the liscense states that if someone requests the source you must provide it (lots of request for your source)
HTC COMPLIES BECAUSE IF ASKED THEY WILL RELEASE
second to ahkmsk - i looked at your thread and honestly if you dont want to develop for a device you dont have then DONT
your roms are always half cooked and rarely updated / fixed - personally the only DAILY rom you released was your superD port (daily meaning i can use it on a daily basis and not be hampered by bugs or lost functionality)
maybe you should wait to own a device before you develop so you are motivated to release fully functioning roms and not half baked sense roms based on dumps
you guys are the queens of drama...
sanpei said:
I think you are right. thank you for this lesson
for discussions:
I think I have a workaround on this: if I claim a organization, and our members can get my binary, and this organization never distribute anything to the world out of it. then it will not violate the GPL.
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you would think about how things work seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or as the beauty of the dev community, share
Of course I always give credit where credit is due - you wouldn't be disincluded
I have all of the code and have cleaned it up nicely only one bug left in it for audio - if you would like you could look at the commits and see if u see my (probable) typo
bcrook said:
sanpei, we all know what its like to work for this community. You release something and people blame you for any little bug and also never give you credit.
Despite this, I really hope you decide to post your sources, it would great to have and there are lots of people who could do great work with it. The point of this community to work together and not withhold your work because you want to be the only one with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said I won't release the sources forever. I just feel uncomfortable many people did things in such a way.
so if they have troubles, I don't want this trouble to be resolved by me.
and not to put too fine a point on it, I find that there not so many people who could do some serious work with the kernel, if they just wait for someone to provide the correct patches.
they should try to understand what they MUST understand. after this, we would believe that they could do something valuable, but not just name things already exists.
alan090 said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wesgarner said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my request is very simple:
create a real project which belongs to community only, do not call it with any uncommon name.
I don't think that cm-kernel, WGKernel, or sanpei kernel do really exist. all of these are just normal linux kernel, with some public patches and little changes.
we should not name the kernel binary we release to users too. because what we did just too trivial to mention if we compare these works with real kernel development. and some option tweaks are absolute nothing.
(you could name the ROM releases)
and we should promise that we will work in this project in the future, and we won't make a named kernel again, unless you rewrite more than 1/10 codes of the kernel and make it real different from a common kernel.
then, I will work with you guys together, you will find that I am not so idiotic as you may think now.
sanpei said:
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you think about how things work seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh for god's sake, if you know the solution, why don't you just TELL us what to do?? Or better yet, produce a kernel patch? Stop playing this annoying "I know something you don't, tee-hee, figure it out yourself!" game of yours.
I don't have much against you personally and I didn't want to get involved in this at all, because I really didn't give that much to Android community myself in the first place (and it's not because I wouldn't want to), but this selfish attitude of yours is annoying the hell out of me really (to put it mildly). What good is it to know something and sit on it selfishly for months instead of sharing it so others can benefit from it? And why not in exchange let others help YOU figure out the things you seem to struggle with, whenever it is because you're busy or simply because you don't know the solution, which happens to any of us sometimes, even the brightest? Isn't that the whole point of joining a community in the first place?
If everyone in the Android community was following your example, there would most likely be no community at all by now. There would just be a bunch of people like Cyanogen or Wes posting about what great things have they done with their phones that they won't allow others to reuse. What a community feeliing...
If you don't want to release something, don't, that's fine by me, I don't care that much as others do about you following GPL or not (although I really should, it exists for a reason), but if you decide so, then please also stop boasting to others about all those awesome things you have and won't give them. It doesn't make you look wise, it just makes you look like a wiseass.
You're also saying you don't like that people are splicing ROMs together with bits and pieces of other ROMs, yet instead of setting an example on how to do it right all you do is give people your kernel binary (and I mean the .29 in your ROMs, not just the .32 you've shared here earlier today) instead of kernel source. What good is the kernel binary if people can't modify it and/or compile it themselves as they should? If someone wants to make a ROM for 32A new radio, they pretty much have to do exactly what you dislike - splice your kernel binary with some other ROM and hope for the best. The effect is that you've been deliberately slowing the 32A community's progress for months now, because of...of what, exactly? Fame? The feeling of uniqueness? The community is already weakening as the many are moving to N1, why the hell would you want to weaken it even more and intentionally by denying others access to what you have available? What's the point? Unless you really don't have the sources as some people are implying, but then, why don't simply confess and be done with it with style?
I really don't get this at all.
On a separate but related note, if devs in general don't like the hacks among us (such as myself ) cooking ROMs by taking bits and pieces from everyone and splicing them together, then please let us know. I don't want to post the little I have done if it will upset the majority of devs.
Unfortunately as Case just stated, I personally have felt the need to try (as lame as my efforts may seem to the far more knowledgeable devs) to put ROMs together for the 32a Magic community and myself even if they have some bugs. We just don't have any other option at this point if we want to go with the new radio.
The majority of posters seem to always give credit where it is deserved when taking from devs.
sanpei said:
my request is very simple:
create a real project which belongs to community only, do not call it with any uncommon name.
I don't think that cm-kernel, WGKernel, or sanpei kernel does really exist. all of these are just normal linux kernel, with some public patches and little changes.
we should not name the kernel binary we release to users too. because what we did just too trivial to mention if we compare these works with real kernel development.
(you could name the ROM releases)
and we should promise that we will work in this project in the future, and we won't make a named kernel again, except you rewrite more than 1/10 codes of kernel at least.
then, I will work with you guys together. you will find that I am not so idiotic as you think now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think your an idiot sanpei
I just think we all have a little ways to go here
If you are willing to work on a community kernel with WG im sure all the people involved in porting/rom building will be happy to make you proud of your work
sure people like bcrook and others would be happy to contribute as well
what we just want is you to work with us - not for us
i know i will be happy to work with a new kernel on porting
i will also look into rom cooking more and work with other members to release awesome roms based on 32a community kernel
we just want to work together right
Case_ said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
giant_rider said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have already said that I am NOT aiming at ROM devs. the ROM is full filled with your personal styles. that's why people love your ROM. and do you think the kernel works is more difficult or valuable than what you did? absolutely NO.
I am just talking about the kernel. every named kernels are nothing different essentially. they are all one thing and they all have same patches. would you copy Cyanogen's ROM, just install/remove some apps, and name it as yours?
and I don't feel I am wise, uniqueness or somewhat, I just want to struggle with these behaviors. so I refuse to share my work with any named kernel.
the only way to prevent them from getting my patches, just do not post the sources until they are really work together, at a common project as things should go.
Case_ said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and if all of you think what I did just slowing your progress, OK , I will QUIT. anyway, all of you will get HTC's kernel in next months.
and may I remind you, before I had posted the binary, most people had thought that it's impossible to let msm-kernel work with new radio. at least, they know it could work now. make your efforts, it's not so late.
btw, there are not any spiritual needs what I could get from these works, except the understandings on how these devices work. I have more important things in my life. I just did things on my way. that's all.
you are right on one thing. I shouldn't talk about all these bull-****. if I just had taken the binary from others who you don't know and they couldn't release their sources for some reasons, all of you will be satisfied.
so everybody here, I am just a LIAR . what you have got is STOLEN by me from somewhere. what I said above just my EXCUSEs. the fact is: I DO NOT have the sources
to me it's simple
your feelings could be understood
but once you release the binary to the public
you have to release the source code according to GPL
you may want to define the word 'public'
but you never want to redefine GPL license
that's it
alan090 said:
I don't think your an idiot sanpei
I just think we all have a little ways to go here
If you are willing to work on a community kernel with WG im sure all the people involved in porting/rom building will be happy to make you proud of your work
sure people like bcrook and others would be happy to contribute as well
what we just want is you to work with us - not for us
i know i will be happy to work with a new kernel on porting
i will also look into rom cooking more and work with other members to release awesome roms based on 32a community kernel
we just want to work together right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first, thank you for your kind words.
and I hope that other developers could make the patches soon, then I don't need to steal something from somewhere anymore.
you may not get the patches from me, because I am not sure if I can steal sources.
sanpei said:
my request is very simple:
create a real project which belongs to community only, do not call it with any uncommon name.
I don't think that cm-kernel, WGKernel, or sanpei kernel do really exist. all of these are just normal linux kernel, with some public patches and little changes.
we should not name the kernel binary we release to users too. because what we did just too trivial to mention if we compare these works with real kernel development. and some option tweaks are absolute nothing.
(you could name the ROM releases)
and we should promise that we will work in this project in the future, and we won't make a named kernel again, unless you rewrite more than 1/10 codes of the kernel and make it real different from a common kernel.
then, I will work with you guys together, you will find that I am not so idiotic as you may think now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Sanpei,
First of all I wanted to say thanks for the work you have done for 32a! I really appreciate it - it is something that I cannot do and have no knowledge of!
Secondly, I can understand the issue you have with the naming of the Kernel given that its more just tweaks to the linux kernel that is being done and not a whole new Kernel re-write. However, I think it is still necessary to give it some sort of a name for version tracking and to make sure that people know which version of the Kernel is being discussed / used.
So how about this: For the Kernel that you and others collectively work on for the community why don't we give it a generic name that is not specific to any one developer? We could call it "XDA32a Kernel" or something, that way we can track changes to our community Kernel and if something goes wrong or if there are bugs, people don't point the finger at any one developer/coder.
What do you think?
novat said:
Hey Sanpei,
First of all I wanted to say thanks for the work you have done for 32a! I really appreciate it - it is something that I cannot do and have no knowledge of!
Secondly, I can understand the issue you have with the naming of the Kernel given that its more just tweaks to the linux kernel that is being done and not a whole new Kernel re-write. However, I think it is still necessary to give it some sort of a name for version tracking and to make sure that people know which version of the Kernel is being discussed / used.
So how about this: For the Kernel that you and others collectively work on for the community why don't we give it a generic name that is not specific to any one developer? We could call it "XDA32a Kernel" or something, that way we can track changes to our community Kernel and if something goes wrong or if there are bugs, people don't point the finger at any one developer/coder.
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with a generic name.
every binary release should provide correct commit code. they will give all the information we need in a build.
but you should talk to other developers. I just a thief and I can't get sources
Awesome Well I can't code or anything but I am a software tester by profession, and so I have some idea of project management... Maybe I could help get our 32a devs together to work on a joint kernel project?
Who would you suggest I contact to try to get together on a kernel dev team? Yourself, wez, cursor, any others?
HTC has just released the kernel source for the Legend and the Incredible, but they have skipped the Desire ...
http://developer.htc.com/
seems a bit strange to me. Any ideas about the suitable of the Legend vs the Desire?
Regards
I'm not seeing any new posts on http://developer.htc.com.
I guess if something for the Incredible and Legend was posted, it was probably by mistake and has subsequently been removed.
Regards,
Dave
are u behind a proxy?
Droid Incredible by HTC(Verizon) Kernel Source Code 56.0 MB 2010/04/30
Droid Eris MR by HTC (Verizon) Kernel Source Code 56.3 MB 2010/04/30
HTC Legend Kernel Source Code 56.0 MB 2010/04/30
refresh yout page
foxmeister said:
I'm not seeing any new posts on http://developer.htc.com.
I guess if something for the Incredible and Legend was posted, it was probably by mistake and has subsequently been removed.
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're back up now but no desire source
they was not there a minute ago, they are there now
This is good news, as i cant see them, releasing everything but the Desire's Kernel, It means we will see a Kernel at some point))))
I think that HTC's website must be geo-locating by IP. If I go to their site with a US IP, I can see the additional downloads, but they are still unavailable via my UK IP address.
Regards,
Dave
The kernel might be very similar to the incredible one.
im in the uk and i can see it ok
Something is strange, because the link for the Droid Eris MR by HTC (Verizon) is http://member.america.htc.com/download/RomCode/Source_and_Binaries/desirec_2.6.29_8a03cb9a.tar.bz2.
So why do they call ist ....desirec_2.6.29_8a03cb9a.tar.bz2?
allla said:
Something is strange, because the link for the Droid Eris MR by HTC (Verizon) is http://member.america.htc.com/download/RomCode/Source_and_Binaries/desirec_2.6.29_8a03cb9a.tar.bz2.
So why do they call ist ....desirec_2.6.29_8a03cb9a.tar.bz2?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not strange, the HTC Desire is codenamed Bravo. The Droid Eris is codenamed Desire. Confusing, but not strange.
deovferreira said:
It's not strange, the HTC Desire is codenamed Bravo. The Droid Eris is codenamed Desire. Confusing, but not strange.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right - not confusion, but strange ;-)
JupiterDroid said:
they was not there a minute ago, they are there now
This is good news, as i cant see them, releasing everything but the Desire's Kernel, It means we will see a Kernel at some point))))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't really have a choice, actually, they do have to follow the GPL under which it is licensed.
In fact, if they DID really follow that license correctly, we should have received the sources (or at least a link to the sources) with the device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_and_conditions
The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At http://developer.htc.com/ they have released the kernel for Incredible, Droid ERIS and the Legend, after asking HTC about Desire version they have answered with:
QUOTE
Dear Mr.Gomez Thank you for contacting HTC. Kindly note that as Desire and Legend are both running Android 2.1 "Eclair". Besides that both of them are having almost same specefications, that's why we released only one of them. If you have any other inquiries, don’t hesitate to contact us again. Please note that you can contact us via support line. For further details, please go to http://www.htc.com/europe/CA_Hotline.aspx , Thank you so much for using HTC products. Respect & Regards, HTC Team http://www.htc.com
So I suppose that we can consider http://member.america.htc.com/download/Rom...3be9c9c.tar.bz2 to be the final kernel for the HTC Desire. :-D
Regards
The same specifications? oO
They don't even have the same CPU, let alone the same chipsets...
I have just posted this to MoDaCo :-D They answer me with this "they have the same specifications" so I suppose that the kernel is the same for both, I mean they use the same source with different configuration (depending on the chipset, cpu, etc).
Regards
The differences from the base (standard linux) 2.6.29 kernel:
Legend: 914 files more than 1.4M bzipped diff file
Incredible: 941 files more than 1.4M bzipped diff file
The differences between both kernels are less than that, 252 files and about 250K bzipped diff file.
Regards,
Mmmh sounds kinda weird..one would think that if for some reason the kernels of Legend and Desire were somehow the same, HTC would have added at least a tiny note on their developer page specifying so...
Legend same specifications as Desire? strange
for what I know Incredible is very close to nexus one and desire
kewell79 said:
At http://developer.htc.com/ they have released the kernel for Incredible, Droid ERIS and the Legend, after asking HTC about Desire version they have answered with:
QUOTE
Dear Mr.Gomez Thank you for contacting HTC. Kindly note that as Desire and Legend are both running Android 2.1 "Eclair". Besides that both of them are having almost same specefications, that's why we released only one of them. If you have any other inquiries, don’t hesitate to contact us again. Please note that you can contact us via support line. For further details, please go to http://www.htc.com/europe/CA_Hotline.aspx , Thank you so much for using HTC products. Respect & Regards, HTC Team http://www.htc.com
So I suppose that we can consider http://member.america.htc.com/download/Rom...3be9c9c.tar.bz2 to be the final kernel for the HTC Desire. :-D
Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is unacceptable and a gross violation of the GPL.
HTC did not release the kernel source because the Desire is rootable and having the kernel would allow us to override their pathetic security (which is, by the way, cracked already).
The bravo board files are NOT in there!
Fully Agreed. So what's the next play ?
Warn GPL-Violations ? FTF ? Google ? (do Google even care ?)
Guys,
Have at it ! Here is the Xoom build.prop thanks to thefredelement... Give him a HUGE thanks for sharing this
Just download it; then extract the zip file and there you go!!!
Thanks again thefredelement !!!
Does this mean we will have honeycomb soon or do we still need the drivers from nvidia?
You still need a boot.img. Just so you know people have had access to the xoom for more than a week already and have been working on this.
Thanks, but based on the early indications this fingerprint will actually cause the market to shrink rather than expand. It is interesting to read though as it specifically states nosdcard, and does include the telephony stuff, if nothing else there is potential that once we have a honeycomb port 3G usb modem drivers may become available.
I just posted this so we could take a look at what was in it... it is a good read if nothing else ;-)
thebadfrog said:
You still need a boot.img. Just so you know people have had access to the xoom for more than a week already and have been working on this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would have thanked you but I've exceeded my max per didn't know there was a maximum. You learn something new everyday.
Anyways, it's also my understanding that to get the boot.img, the Xoom will need to be rooted. Is that correct? So, is that what we should be really looking for? Xoom has been rooted threads?
Look for "Rom based on Honeycomb". And yes it needs root. It will happen people. Posting endless honeycomb threads is not gonna make it any faster.
Ok I'm kind of a noob, please don't slam me 'frog. Since the whole purpose of Android and the whole Open Source thing is to make source available, don't either Motorola, nVidia or Google NEED to release this Honeycomb-Tegra 2 code at some point. I do realize that there may be proprietary pieces but I thought once you used open source code, you were obliged to release your resulting code to the community. Am I missing something here or is all this chatter just an attempt to get it faster?
I hate seeing all of the teaser threads as well, but I also try to keep an open mind and view it more as humorous than obnoxious. I'm sure the real dev's are quite adept at skipping and ignoring the stupid comments by people like me.
I'm just saying ...
thebadfrog said:
Look for "Rom based on Honeycomb". And yes it needs root. It will happen people. Posting endless honeycomb threads is not gonna make it any faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol. I shouldn't have posted the last two sentences. It's not like I was saying that I was being impatient. Just wanted to learn that's all.
I'm assuming we'll see a lot of the bits and pieces of the XOOM system posted in here and just wanted to know what's relevant or not.
Thanks again.
Its all good. I understand people wanna learn.
Yes they have to release anything that is open source but if you use linux you can use the nvidea and ati example. They don't release their proprietary libs for their cards and as a result its quite likely when you upgrade your kernel you break your video drivers. Its not so bad now but a couple years ago I couldnt keep an ati card working.
All the endless threads that are repeats make it nearly impossible for noobs to find good information and it makes it harder for me to link the correct posts for noobs to follow. Everyone was new at one time but you will never learn anything if you keep asking and not looking. This is a developer forum....xda DEVELOPERS.... not a customer service forum. Most devs here go out of their way to answer questions as do a few of us power users. My tirades are not directed at people like the 2 previous posts. Its the ones that dont want help. They want someone to hold there hand and type out each and every command for them and supply them a fix for every problem. And they want it now
sverbanic said:
Ok I'm kind of a noob, please don't slam me 'frog. Since the whole purpose of Android and the whole Open Source thing is to make source available, don't either Motorola, nVidia or Google NEED to release this Honeycomb-Tegra 2 code at some point. I do realize that there may be proprietary pieces but I thought once you used open source code, you were obliged to release your resulting code to the community. Am I missing something here or is all this chatter just an attempt to get it faster?
I hate seeing all of the teaser threads as well, but I also try to keep an open mind and view it more as humorous than obnoxious. I'm sure the real dev's are quite adept at skipping and ignoring the stupid comments by people like me.
I'm just saying ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Typically one week is the lead time afforded the trail blazing device for each generation of Android, and then the plain vanilla source AOSP is posted at source.android.com (read about git first, where the kernel is posted). However none of the proprietary information in specific devices needs to be made available right away.
Will th devs that made the honeynook sdk preview be able to update that if they get a Xoom, amd in turn would that help the g tab devs?
I'm just curious about how much of a problem the fact that the XOOM has a Gig of system ram rather than 512 megs will be. I could see an easy way to protect some exclusivity under the guise of "ensuring compatibility" where one of the first boot steps is to check for enough available ram...
Good thing my Zpad has 1 gig ram then eh
boot img and tegra 2 aosp source here
http://android.modaco.com/content/advent-vega-vega-modaco-com/333138/xoom-rootboot-img/#entry1614605
I think.
Alpha06 said:
boot img and tegra 2 aosp source here
http://android.modaco.com/content/advent-vega-vega-modaco-com/333138/xoom-rootboot-img/#entry1614605
I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a Xoom boot.img, and the (tegra 2) kernel source for honeycomb (2.6.36).
Ok, per Engadget Xoom has been rooted... Next?
Here are the init files as well: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=11615922&postcount=9
You can get a rooted boot image here: http://www.koushikdutta.com/2011/02/motorola-xoom-rooted.html
Love it when things start moving at nearly the speed of light,... uh oh, getting dizzy... frog, will you hold my hand?
MikeTheSith200 said:
Will th devs that made the honeynook sdk preview be able to update that if they get a Xoom, amd in turn would that help the g tab devs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Nook is so heavily supported because it's so god damn cheap for a tablet. (it's really an "e-reader")
there was no touch interface released with the version of honeycomb from the preview sdk.
With a real Honeycomb product (and full SDK) full development is possible.
If you wait, They will build it, we will come. =]
I emailed HTC's open source department about kernel source and this is the email I gotHTC
to me
Dear Dustin Stoker,
Hey, Dustin, thanks for contacting us about the kernal source for the One XL. In regards to this, getting that phones source code is something we are working on getting up. I know this is something that is being worked on and we don't just want to put up flawed software for the development community to use. So we want it to be as close to perfect and include the patches to previous problems we've run into as well. So, that is why that we don't really have an ETA at this point. I thank you for your patience with us in this and I hope you have a great day!
Hope it comes soon.
same typical
automated email response
Ya I figured that was the case hope it comes soon they gotta comply with linux open source laws if they released it the talented devs on hear could probably fix it before them lol
xstokerx said:
Ya I figured that was the case hope it comes soon they gotta comply with linux open source laws if they released it the talented devs on hear could probably fix it before them lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
soon as in month and month and month from now
CheesyNutz said:
soon as in month and month and month from now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep usually how it is
xstokerx said:
I emailed HTC's open source department about kernel source and this is the email I gotHTC
to me
Dear Dustin Stoker,
Hey, Dustin, thanks for contacting us about the kernal source for the One XL. In regards to this, getting that phones source code is something we are working on getting up. I know this is something that is being worked on and we don't just want to put up flawed software for the development community to use. So we want it to be as close to perfect and include the patches to previous problems we've run into as well. So, that is why that we don't really have an ETA at this point. I thank you for your patience with us in this and I hope you have a great day!
Hope it comes soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, if this is an official response from HTC, they have horrible spelling, grammar and sentence formation.
It also seems highly unlikely that a paid developer spelled "kernel" wrong.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Here's HTC's standard response:
Dear $YOUR_NAME
Thank you for contacting HTC regarding Kernel Source code. I know that this code is important to the development community and I will be happy to assist you with the correct information regarding this.
HTC is committed to assisting customers in getting kernel source code for HTC devices. We will release source code in accordance with any applicable open source license terms. We are working to release appropriate kernel code bases as soon as possible after device launch but we cannot guarantee the exact time frame. Other source codes, which are not required to be disclosed by the open source license terms, unfortunately cannot be disclosed by HTC as they may be proprietary to HTC or its licensor.
Please keep an eye on http://developer.htc.com for more information. I hope you enjoy the rest of your week, $YOUR_NAME.
If this answers your comment or question, please click here to complete the process.
To submit another comment, please click here.
Sincerely,
The HTCDev Team
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off I'm a new entrant to android, and I would like to build AOSP rom for our device. I have read quite a few posts on the internet about it. In one post Its said that the steps to AOSP building are 1) setting up environment
2) Syncing device tree 3) downloading the android source 4) downloading the drivers (kernal source code?)
4) building it. Is it actually that simple?
Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Lets discuss the possibility of AOSP rom for our devices.
Can some one post all the resources which we have, that will help building the rom?
Also, this thread can be a starting point for many developers out there.
kr1shna said:
First off I'm a new entrant to android, and I would like to build AOSP rom for our device. I have read quite a few posts on the internet about it. In one post Its said that the steps to AOSP building are 1) setting up environment
2) Syncing device tree 3) downloading the android source 4) downloading the drivers (kernal source code?)
4) building it. Is it actually that simple?
Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Lets discuss the possibility of AOSP rom for our devices.
Can some one post all the resources which we have, that will help building the rom?
Also, this thread can be a starting point for many developers out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi kr1shna.
I saw your post on another thread involving the same topic.
The fact of the matter is, with the Mate 7 and Huawei devices in general, that Huawei does not release certain sources needed for creating a custom kernel, meaning that the only ROMs that can be created for these devices have to based off the existing EMUI sources, meaning there really isn't much use in doing it at all. @gabry3795 has managed to get the GPU drivers running (reported on his thread, which can be found here), however that's as far as anyone has come. After that the only way to get the device to actually boot (as far as my very limited knowledge on these things go) is to implement Huawei's sources and files, meaning you will just eventually end up with EMUI again.
TL;DR: Huawei is a jackass when it comes to releasing sources, meaning creating custom, non EMUI-ROMs and kernels is pretty much impossible.
If you do figure it out though, rest assured you will have the praise of all of us here that's absolutely sick of EMUI. So best of luck to you, however don't get your hopes up too high.
Scruffykid said:
Hi kr1shna.
I saw your post on another thread involving the same topic.
The fact of the matter is, with the Mate 7 and Huawei devices in general, that Huawei does not release certain sources needed for creating a custom kernel, meaning that the only ROMs that can be created for these devices have to based off the existing EMUI sources, meaning there really isn't much use in doing it at all. @gabry3795 has managed to get the GPU drivers running (reported on his thread, which can be found here), however that's as far as anyone has come. After that the only way to get the device to actually boot (as far as my very limited knowledge on these things go) is to implement Huawei's sources and files, meaning you will just eventually end up with EMUI again.
TL;DR: Huawei is a jackass when it comes to releasing sources, meaning creating custom, non EMUI-ROMs and kernels is pretty much impossible.
If you do figure it out though, rest assured you will have the praise of all of us here that's absolutely sick of EMUI. So best of luck to you, however don't get your hopes up too high.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for the information, so buying a huawei was a bad decision. I should have got the htc m9 or a9 instead.
kr1shna said:
Thank you for the information, so buying a huawei was a bad decision. I should have got the htc m9 or a9 instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very bad decision! i have been trying to get help from huawei to release their sources for over a year but have had no luck. at this point im pretty much done and will probably just end up buying the next nexus device regardless of screen size. its sad that their are no good 6 inch phones with custom rom support.
i was going to try and pursue legal action but seeing as how the mate 7 was not legally released in the US, their is no legal recourse. im hoping someone in the EU could do some research regarding legal action against huawei in the hope of pressuring them to release source codes.