Related
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.
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.
Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face shakedown or shutdown
Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face shakedown or shutdown
Last week I read about an Android licensing issue that I wasn't previously aware of. It's a pretty serious one, and it's not that hard to understand. The short version is that
rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;
this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without which Android can't run; and
as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.
At first sight it may appear unthinkable that things could go so wrong with the distribution license for the very foundation Android was built upon. But I did my research and the above conclusions are just consistent with legal positions taken recently by two of the most renowned Free Software organizations -- the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) -- in another context involving GPLv2 (and software embedded in devices), the so-called BusyBox lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 1:09-cv-10155).
Just like those organizations forced a number of companies (most recently Best Buy, previously some others including Cisco and Verizon) to pay up, the situation surrounding most Android OEMs could become quite uncomfortable if any Linux copyright holders driven by greed or other motives team up with copyright lawyers (such as on a contingency basis) and enforce their rights. There are thousands of Linux kernel contributors besides Linus Torvalds. In some cases, it would probably be easy to just replace the code they contributed if they seek to enforce their rights, but in other cases, it would certainly take longer than someone's ability to obtain a preliminary injunction somewhere on this planet.
Click link to look at the legal issue more closely.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html
Does not sound too good...
Sensationalist bull****.
Hmm now thats interesting.
Doesn't this mean the OEM's will have to stick to vanilla android or release their modifications? Or is it not that simple? I read about the apache liscense with google and GPLv2 but im not quite sure I understood that part. Can anyone clearify?
Well from what I got it seems that google aquired motorola with good timing.
EDIT: So the problem with google and the apache license was that they never commented the proper permissions in their code, correct?
No, there ARE no problems with the licensing, and even Linus himself has said there are no issues. The kernel is licensed under GPL, and the kernel code is available. The user space itself is licensed under Apache and Google have no requirement to release the source for ASL code.
This guy is nothing but a huge Android troll and is well known for being so.
Kernel GPL violations
FloatingFatMan said:
No, there ARE no problems with the licensing, and even Linus himself has said there are no issues. The kernel is licensed under GPL, and the kernel code is available. The user space itself is licensed under Apache and Google have no requirement to release the source for ASL code.
This guy is nothing but a huge Android troll and is well known for being so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The general conclusion is right (that is, most major vendors are complying with their GPL requirements, mainly because they aren't modding the kernel, and are - if somewhat reluctantly - releasing the config files). However it's not true for all. A substantial number of smaller manufacturers, often offshore ones, are modding the kernel source and config files and are not releasing the modded kernel source code and config files. Those are clear breaches of their GPL licence, hence those manufacturers are breaching copyright. Anyone selling or distributing those systems is at serious risk (and I for one hope that the Free Software Foundation goes after them soon - they may be offshore, but their business models would break if they were denied access to first-world markets).
So in plan English, What does that mean for consumers???
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
KRAZYADROIDMASTER said:
So in plan English, What does that mean for consumers???
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No more Sense/Touchwiz/OptimusUI?
Oh darn. No TW? That would not bother me at all! Haha. Bit this is sad.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
I think the manufacturers not complying with the GPL are likely to fold when either the linux or free software foundations lean on them. It'll probably end up with the foundations getting a reasonable amount of money, and the manufacturers having to make sure that they comply (google "Cisco GPL" to see what I'm talking about). As a consumer, if your manufacturer was already complying, it won't make much difference. If they weren't, it will probably mean that a fair few apps that weren't available will become so, and the hardware will be easier to root and probably to mod.
Aren't bootloaders proprietary? I don't think that's under GPL.^
Bootloaders and GPL
alpha-niner64 said:
Aren't bootloaders proprietary? I don't think that's under GPL.^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi alpha-niner; bootloaders haven't been mentioned till now in this thread, so it's a bit of a red herring. But to take the bait: the bootloader itself is almost always proprietary. The manufacturers have no obligation to release it. Of course, unlocking it with a utility provided by the overall system developer (i.e. fastboot) seems likely to be legal unless you specifically agreed not to do so in your purchase agreement, as is completely replacing it with a bootloader that you have a licence for. Disassembling it is clearly illegal. Taking it off the system to mod it and putting the modded version back is probably illegal (the illegal action is making a copy for the purpose of modding rather than backup). On the other hand, in-flash patching of the bootloader doesn't involve copying, so can't breach copyright (it might breach a carefully written licence, I guess). And of course you would then be entitled to back up the patched bootloader. It's the order and direction of actions that's important here.
But more important, you are correct in implying that the problem with some systems lie in the bootloader itself. But the problems with many others lie in "proprietary" mods to the boot kernel and GPLed components of the initramfs, and "proprietary" mods to the running kernel and GNU utilities. They could readily be reversed or adapated if the mod sources were released as per the GPL. Not doing so is a clear GPL breach. These cases are legion.
It's also worth noting that some of the worst offenders are disabling kernel modules and building drivers directly into the kernel. Whatever may be the case with loadable kernel modules, built in drivers are clear derivative works of the kernel, and thus are also subject to the GPL. In many cases, the drivers are for third party components: so the manufacturers not only breached the GPL in these cases, they very probably breached their agreements with the component vendors as well. Vendor X, who supplies manufacturer Y with a component and the proprietary driver for it, is likely to have built in some contract protection against Y's actions leading to their driver becoming GPLed.
Best Wishes
Bob
Have any of you really thought about the current Android root access situation?
Android, an operating system developed by Google, based on the work of Linus Torvalds et.al., distributed under GPL1,2 or 3 which supposedly protects it from being "owned" by any commercial organization and requires the source code for any modifications to be made available to the end user is currently owned by the commercial interests of the various phone carriers both here and in other countries. The very fact that we have to "hack" root access to a phone we purchased, based on a GPL operating system is, from my understanding, illegal. By locking the bootloader refusing to release sources and preventing the end user from altering an OS kernel they themselves don't own they have effectively ignored not only the legal purpose for the various GPL's but the entire spirit of Linux and it's open-source concept. They, meaning the various hardware MFG's, in conjunction/association with the various phone carriers, download free software written by Linus and other volunteer developers, edit it, compile it, add their own flavors to it then blatantly lock access to it by refusing to allow the end user to do the very thing Linux was interned to do, be modified to suit our whims. By not making the entire source code for the kernel and other FREE system utilities freely available aren't they violating the GPL?
Am I the only one who thinks Verizon, Motorola, AT&T, Samsung, HTC even Cricket and the others are just asking for a lawsuit? Isn't the very reason Google chose Linux upon which to base it's various and sundry data devices because it is open source?
The only possible reason they could have for preventing the development community from gaining operating system root access is so they can maintain a hand on your wallet. By writing apps that require you to pay double fees to use the same data connection you've already paid for such as "tether" is more than just dishonest, It's illegal. Not even the government is that dishonest.
comments?
UPDATED:
I stand corrected, the google source tree for the current kernel source is available from google. I haven't seen MFG specific source but I've been told it does exist and can be downloaded.
You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.
Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them. Nonetheless, there is no obvious GPL violation ongoing by any of the manufacturers you mentioned. Any GPL based code much be released as open source. And it is. All the major manufacturers have sections on their sites where you can download source of kernels etc. Proprietary code (e.g. Sense, TouchWiz etc.) can't be downloaded, but these aren't based on GPL code obviously. [If they were, the companies would be legally obligated to release source code].
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used. It doesn't have anything to do with security measures in place on the device on which code is run. Manufacturers are perfectly within their rights to prevent rooting or unlocking bootlaoders to the best of their ability (although most manufacturers want to offer bootloader unlocking facilities, and it is actually the carriers who object; that sort of low level access gives a greater chance of sim unlocking I guess?).
SifJar said:
Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whow, you almost sound hostile.
I mentioned Verizon, Cricket AT&T in the second paragraph. And I agree that it's the carriers that don't want an unlocked bootloader. It's a potential profit center for them.
As for the MFG being within their rights to lock access to a device they have sold to me, I disagree. What good is the source tree if I can't compile and install it? As the owner of a device that runs GPL based code they have nothing proprietary to protect by locking the bootloader, or any other part of the device. The eFuse technology wasn't devised or intended specifically to prevent the owner from running whatever they want on the device. It's intent is to protect the device, a network available device, from unwanted tampering, not to prevent the owner from using the device as he or she sees fit. And if the owner is provided the tools it's not an obstacle to it's use. But I feel the carriers and MFG's as well in their lust for those few extra dollars have gone too far.
As for the kernel source being available, I wasn't aware they were. I stand corrected. Still, locking a device to prevent the owner from using it to share his or her internet connection, a connection they have already paid for, is certainly dishonest and possibly illegal. In government parlance it's called "double taxation". It also makes no sense at all. The market contains apps that will share the 4G connection without the carriers proprietary $30 a month product. So, what are they protecting?
kmdub said:
You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you be more specific?
Perhaps it's interpretation?
When the GPL was originally written there weren't any device locks. It was a safe assumption that if you could compile the source you could execute it on your device. Things have changed a bit since then. What value is a source tree if I can't install and run it on the device it's intended to run on? At this point the source is simply a placation to satisfy the "law". What happened to honesty in the market place? What happened to integrity in business?
SifJar said:
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Locking is probably because if
"You want higher android version? Buy our new phones!"
Sent from my Ainol Novo7 Elf using xda premium
What you are asking for - that the carriers/manufacturers ship the phone unlocked so you can e.g. put your own build of the OS onto YOUR phone - makes perfect, reasonable sense.
However, the GPL doesn't cover that, and the carriers are most certainly not reasonable or sensible.
On the positive side, you do have an option: Nexus.
siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL doesn't state that the user must be able to use code compiled by themselves, just that the code has to be available so they could compile it themselves. Like it or not, this has nothing to do with GPL I'm afraid.
The carriers want their customers to use the devices buying their services, and don't want to be spending lots on supporting "modified" devices that break. At the end of the day it comes down the the $$$.
If you spend enough with them and don't cost them lots in support calls and device repairs, then I don't think they care really. But they need to set a barrier to prevent any git from accidentally bricking their phone. If you've got the balls and skills to root your phone then one can assume that your also prepared to take responsibility for the action to do that. If you want warranty repair, you need to atleast satisfy the repair agent that it's a fault with the device not the result of rooting and modding their phone and bricking it or damaging it as a result.
With regards to the GPL, I don't think the vendors or carriers are trying to end run it, and from what I've seen and read they are mostly working hard to comply with GPL terms.
If you've got clear evidence of GPL violations, then take that to the copyright holders of the infringed software and let them decide what to do about it. Only they have the right to claim remedies for violations of the license terms.
---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------
The carriers are only interested in making money, and damn the consequences. Customer services is about keeping the customer using their services not keeping the customer happy.
Just be glad for an emimently hackable device running floss, and a SDK that allows easy development of apps to run on it as well. It's better then we've ever had.
Linux and open source software running on a phone - a few years ago people laughed at the idea. Now their buying and enjoying them even if only for the carriers intended purpose.
Linux pervades our lives. I dare say there are more linux kernels running then any other at this point in time.
I just found out that the COKC updates source code for the T-Mobile Note 5(SM-N920T) was combined and hidden with the S6+ source codes. I don't know why they did this but if you couldn't find the COKC source codes there they are.
http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=sub&sub=F&searchValue=G928T
That's Dec 15th update. Samsung regularly releases GPL licence related stuff (excluding proprietary part) on their opensource website, which can't be built as whole ROM. Kernel dev can play with it but it ain't Marshmallow.
Radukk said:
That's Dec 15th update. Samsung regularly releases GPL licence related stuff (excluding proprietary part) on their opensource website, which can't be built as whole ROM. Kernel dev can play with it but it ain't Marshmallow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, my point was, that is not attached to SM-N920T at all it was hidden attached to a completely different device. Also I gave the location out for devs who didn't know where to locate it.