We have been consistently working the kernel source issue since the Gtab came out, and it looks like it is starting to get through to Viewsonic. Let's make it clear how bad we want it.
I think we should take tomorrow, Saturday 12/18, to get every single person that sees this post to call Viewsonic's Gtablet support line. Additionally if you have a twitter account, every person needs to request kernel source from @ViewSonic.
Coordinate on IRC: irc.freenode.net, #tegratab
Phone: (866) 501-6405
Twitter: @ViewSonic (tag with #gpl or #vs-gpl)
Email: [email protected] (tapntap)
Between now and tomorrow, let's come up with a standard message so we can get our point across in a consistent manor.
Example:
Twitter: @ViewSonic Abide by the GPL, Release the Gtablet kernel source
Phone: We request that Viewsonic releases the kernel source for the Gtablet. The kernel source has been modified by Viewsonic to support the device hardware, and therfore is required to be released by the GPL.
FAQ:
Why do we need kernel source?
Significant low level tweaking occurs at the kernel level, additionally any new release(2.3) uses a specific kernel. If we don't have source we have to wait until VS provides us a kernel. This vastly impacts how soon we can run the newest android releases, which is compounded by the fact that VS incorporated a custom interface into the Gtablet.
Why can't we compile one today?
The hardware drivers are statically linked in the kernel, which means they are included in the kernel binary. This makes it impossible for us to extract the drivers that we need for the touchscreen, accelerometer, etc to compile a kernel. If they were dynamically linked, we would have access to the driver binaries. If we have the full source we would have access to the driver source.
rothnic said:
We have been consistently working the kernel source issue since the Gtab came out, and it looks like it is starting to get through to Viewsonic. Let's make it clear how bad we want it.
I think we should take tomorrow, Saturday 12/18, to get every single person that sees this post to call Viewsonic's Gtablet support line. Additionally if you have a twitter account, every person needs to request kernel source from @ViewSonic.
Phone: (866) 501-6405
Twitter: @ViewSonic
Email: [email protected] (tapntap)
Between now and tomorrow, let's come up with a standard message so we can get our point across in a consistent manor.
Example:
Twitter: @ViewSonic Abide by the GPL, Release the Gtablet kernel source
Phone: We request that Viewsonic releases the kernel source for the Gtablet. The kernel source has been modified by Viewsonic to support the device hardware, and therfore is required to be released by the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm in. I think we should all try to call at the same time as well. Make every person on the phone take a call about kernel/system source. I'll twitter/email while I wait on hold.
Ill make sure to send a twitter message
I'm in. Also, if you guys are on other websites that have a G-Tablet forum, you should start a thread mirroring this one.
I'm not sure I like the twitter message. How about saying "please" with that? (You "catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar"....)
With the call-in message, I'd suggest something along the lines of "Since the gtab has hardware that does not have any released drivers, please release the kernel source for the currently running ROM image."
Well the time to tweet is now they have some twitter thing going on where you tweet a tv show you watch and add #VSTV at the end, so we should request kernel and add #VSTV at the end
it looks like Tap N tap is not part of viewsonic.
Tap 'n Tap is a technology + design firm located in Boston. For more information, please contact us at [email protected] .
It looks like Viewsonic either outsourced the development to this firm or just licensed it..
can viewsonic license the ROM from Advent Vega or Roebeet?
Will call & send message!
I am in. Will call.
Go Devs..
Well already asked about kernek source once on twitter. but cant hurt to keep asking lol
Sent from my VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0b3 using Tapatalk
please!
elitepsycho said:
Well already asked about kernek source once on twitter. but cant hurt to keep asking lol
Sent from my VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0b3 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah the key here is "onslaught" compared to our single requests here or there. We want it to be undeniable that a huge portion of people want this.
Also, I posted the responses as an example. I'd expect everyone to tailor theirs, but the key point I was making was to request KERNEL source, not just source.
tyy10002 said:
it looks like Tap N tap is not part of viewsonic.
Tap 'n Tap is a technology + design firm located in Boston. For more information, please contact us at [email protected] .
It looks like Viewsonic either outsourced the development to this firm or just licensed it..
can viewsonic license the ROM from Advent Vega or Roebeet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is correct. Viewsonic has sourced out their development to Asia. Additionally they have some type of contract with TapNTap to compile, probably bug test, and distribute the updates.
The reason I included the TapNTap email is that they are the source that is distributing the update(with kernel). The kernel they distribute has statically linked drivers(not modules) that we cannot extract. Therefore they are in violation of the GPL by doing that.
I'm certainly in. I want to do SOMETHING to help this amazing community. I'm going to do all 3 forms of communication. Is it too much to make a website advertising the fact that they're not releasing source per the GPL?
Sent from my VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0b3 using Tapatalk
I think you are better off sending a letter to James Chu and/or Jeff Volpe. And I think you will find more or less legal threat GPL letters on the web you can use as a model for you communication....
http://www.viewsonic.com/company/executive/
Technical support can do little in this matter.
This thread needs a bump this morning (Eastern Time).
Send a letter too vsc - but a polite, nice one, not a legal threat letter. Unless you happen to be a Linux kernel contributor who can legitimately claim that your copyrighted code that's being distributed here, in which case feel free to say what you will.
And Viewsonic and Tap N Tap have both acknowledged that they need to release the kernel source code. So they are aware of the obligation. Our goal here should just be to politely nag enough that feel pressure.
Doing my part to get the issue in front of them by pestering on twitter....well not really pestering today and day before yesterday. Seems persistence pays off a guy a few days ago asked twice about the kernel and got a response. Seems not many people are flooding twitter i never use it until latly to keep up with news from viewsonic. Hope people are calling viewsonic then
My inquiry has been sent. Come on everyone! If we are unable to organize this then we have little credibility with VS and TNT!
I did my part on Twitter. As did two, ahem, close friends on other Twitter accounts.
Called and tweeted. Email next.
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.
Since HTC has not yet provided the source code for the updated kernel (2.6.29-bc0d2cff) that ships with the 2.1 update, I'm putting up this thread to document my requests that they provide it. Once again, they're giving me the run-around.
Request 10USCW22ENA001190
Per the terms of the HTC Legal Agreement on my HTC CDMA (Sprint) Hero, Section 4 (End User License Agreement), I am formally requesting the source code for the Linux kernel 2.6.29 as installed on my phone. I have installed the recent Android 2.1 upgrade, and it does not appear that HTC has published the required source code yet.
As the Linux kernel is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), anyone distributing this software must also provide the source code used to compile the software. Any delay in doing so is a violation of copyright.
The specific version of the software being distributed in the HTC Hero (Sprint) Android 2.1 update is as follows:
Kernel version:
2.6.29-bc0d2cff
[email protected] #1
Thank you for taking the time to post this source code, and making sure that HTC is fulfilling its open-source (and copyright law) obligations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First reply from Philip (North America Support (Tech))
Hello Chris, Thank you for taking the time to write us. I understand that you need the source code for the 2.1 version of the Sprint Hero. Rather than getting into a semantics debate of the device being under the Apache License or the GPL, I will just state the facts as they are. The department that you are in contact with is HTC Technical Support; we do not have any part of posting the source code, nor do we have information as to when it will be posted. However, when the source code is available you will be able to find it at developer.htc.com. Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us again. You can find additional support at support forums at community.htc.com. There is also a customer satisfaction survey for you to take if you are interested. Philip HTC Technical Support www.htc.com www.twitter.com/htc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and my response:
There is NO issue of "semantics" regarding the licensing and source code request I made. The Android platform is licensed under the Apache Software License, while the Linux kernel that the phone runs on is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). I made a very specific request for the Linux kernel source code, which is unarguably licensed via the GPL.
This is very clearly documented in HTC's Legal Documents bundled with the phone. Also clearly documented is the fact that this is the department I am to contact in order to be provided with the source code. Please read the Legal Documents bundled with the HTC Hero (Sprint), consult with a Supervisor, and let me know whether or not HTC will be complying with their End-User License Agreement. If the terms of the End-User License Agreement differ from what is provided with the phone, I would like a copy of the new document.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"
Nice dude!
Way to push them using their own EULA.
I look forward to seeing how this unfolds
Legal department would probably respond better to pressure.
18. Notices. HTC may give you all notices (including legal process) that HTC is required to give by any lawful method, including by posting notice on the Site or by sending it to any email or mailing address that you provide to HTC. You agree to keep your email and mailing addresses current and to check for notices posted on the Site. You agree to send HTC notice by mailing it to HTC’s “Address for Legal Notices” which is:
HTC Corporation
No. 23 Xing-Hua Rd.
330 Taoyuan City
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Attn: Legal Department
With a copy to:
HTC America, Inc.
13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98005
Attn: Legal Department
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My original response to this thread was going to be "not another thread like this...", but then I read your replies to them. I like how you're handling it so far and how you're using their own rules against them
Welcome to round 2 everybody! Hope it doesn't take as long as it did last time. How bout we send them a transcript of the last kernel request thread.
I am glad to see this going again. Like Mrbiggz said, maybe it wont take as long this time.
They released the Eris source like a week after 2.1 was pushed out to their phones.
Wonder why the delay.
-------------------------------------
Sent from my Android phone.
Prolly cause they are pissed about last time. We were relentless and now they want to make us pay for it. LOLOL
cmccracken said:
For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...
jporter12 said:
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.
I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.
fortune82 said:
I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't take full credit for this approach. The last go-around, I repeatedly had a member of the Google Android team suggest that I "read the legal docs" on the phone. I think I finally caught what he was saying between the lines.
In reality the haven't released the code to us because there is a giant sectionof comment in the kernel source that says. and I qoute - "... this line of code is horribly written and would allow for a buffer over run kernel exploit for elivated privledges (i.e. ROOT/TOOR) if a hacker happens to notice the null pointer called *thisIsNotAnExploitLoopHole ..." It then goes on to show the code that can be used to exploit it, but that got lengthy.
@OP, very well put. Let's hope for a 2.1 Kernal release very soon.
Well looks like its going to be another battle with them to get this out, I'm in again and will post the responses that I revive.
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App
We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.
cmccracken said:
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha. Something I did not know about that made me look like a total newb... Oh wait, I AM newbsauce!
I'm with Kcarpenter in that they wouldn't want to let it out now to give the devs here access to an exploit that woudl give us root!
ricersniper said:
We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see it happening until after it's rooted.
Dear Forums,
As we all know, the key to having a truly customizable device is having the source for their builds, and as we also all know, Viewsonic has not released the source code for their Gtablet.
If we all find the correct email to contact, much like all other companies they will be pressured into releasing the source to the community.
Let's get this done.
LETTER
Dear Viewsonic,
We are aware your company has directed many customers calling for technical support to the gTablet sub-forum of xda-developers
http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=841
Please consider listening to what the community as asking for.
By using the Linux Kernel in your device you are required by the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPLv2) to release the source code for the kernel. If there is any proprietary software involved in said code, then you have the right to protect your investment, and not include that with the source release.
We are entitled to the source to change our tablets in the way we see fit with the full understanding that when we modify our tablets software we remove ourselves from any sort of warranty you may offer.
Furthermore, we would like an open dialog between with your developers concerning the software which is shipped with the gTablet. It well known among the community that the return rate for the gTablet is unnaturally high. The version of Android developed by Tap n Tap does not provide a positive user experience for the average user. By this time you should be aware of such feedback coming from the main distributors of the gTablet, Sears and Staples. This situation will only continue to get worse as detailed professional reviews of this product begin to circulate around the Internet. One such review I am referring to will be posted to Anandtech.com in the next few days.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4054/first-look-viewsonic-gtablet-and-tegra-2-performance-preview
Barnes and Noble has released a Software Development Kit as well as source code to enable the community to make the Nook Color the best product it can be.
http://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/press_releases/2010_oct_26_nook_developer.html
Please follow their example. By working together we can make the gTablet a real competitor in the burgeoning tablet marketplace.
Sincerely,
The gTablet Community from xda-developers.com
I'll second that. Not sure what we can do, but they should be reminded.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Viewsonic's main website has a support tab that you can send inquiries. Do you think it would get to the right place if we used that?
The email avenue did not work for me
xmr405o said:
Viewsonic's main website has a support tab that you can send inquiries. Do you think it would get to the right place if we used that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried using the email tech support method for the web site; got this response back:
Dear Mr. Walker,
Thank you for contacting ViewSonic Technical Support.
I apologize but as much as I wanted to assist you with it, the product that you are inquiring about is handled by a different technical department.
You may contact them by calling 1-866-501-6405 between 8am-5pm PST, Monday through Friday.
If you have other technical concerns, feel free to contact us again. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to assist you.
Sincerely,
Josef
ViewSonic Technical Support
(800) 688-6688 (USA)
(866) 463-4775(Canada)
[email protected] said:
I tried using the email tech support method for the web site; got this response back:
Dear Mr. Walker,
Thank you for contacting ViewSonic Technical Support.
I apologize but as much as I wanted to assist you with it, the product that you are inquiring about is handled by a different technical department.
You may contact them by calling 1-866-501-6405 between 8am-5pm PST, Monday through Friday.
If you have other technical concerns, feel free to contact us again. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to assist you.
Sincerely,
Josef
ViewSonic Technical Support
(800) 688-6688 (USA)
(866) 463-4775(Canada)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go for it. it has to drop sooner or later. the more pressure from the community, the better. I'll drop them a line as well.
I get the feeling that instead of taking the time to lock the device down like is done with phones and other android devices, they decided they will just not release the code and hope to stall out mods that way.
TheMongol said:
I get the feeling that instead of taking the time to lock the device down like is done with phones and other android devices, they decided they will just not release the code and hope to stall out mods that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That'd work, except for the fact that it's against the GPL, and that'd be breaking the law. They have to make it available, it's just a matter of pressuring them into doing so sooner than later.
just sent off my second email to viewsonic regarding the gtablet (along with a note telling them to fwd the email accordingly). i will let you guys know if i get a response.
Just called in. They are taking people's contact info that say they are android developers (they started doing that today) and they said they are not doing it to track us or anything like that, but to contact us...like say...when the source is released.
Everybody, call. Emailing isn't going to get you anywhere.
I informed them that they will legally have to release source under GPL, he said he will be passing that up to the developers. It sounds like we may be getting somewhere, but we need to call...the more the merrier. It sounds like they have a small call center so its not how many times you call, but how many different people call at this point.
myndwire said:
That'd work, except for the fact that it's against the GPL, and that'd be breaking the law. They have to make it available, it's just a matter of pressuring them into doing so sooner than later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh yes indeed. But that doesn't mean people won't try to get away with things from time to time. Perhaps they are not even aware. I know I am going to call and ask soon even though I just started developing on android.
I called them today, as well - good bunch of people over there and a pleasure to talk with them.
I'm serious - in a world of reps in third world countries speaking broken english and working off a script, the VS reps are a breath of fresh air and Viewsonic should be commended for that alone. I put in my usual request to please release the source and I was told that they will pass it onto the development team.
I don't expect anything to come from it, but they do know who I am and who we are, so I'm hoping that VS management throws us a bone once they realize what a mistake it was adding that TnT layer.
roebeet said:
I called them today, as well - good bunch of people over there and a pleasure to talk with them.
I'm serious - in a world of reps in third world countries speaking broken english and working off a script, the VS reps are a breath of fresh air and Viewsonic should be commented for that alone. I put in my usual request to please release the source and I was told that they will pass it onto the development team.
I don't expect anything to come from it, but they do know who I am and who we are, so I'm hoping that VS management throws us a bone once they realize what a mistake it was adding that TnT layer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. The guy I talked to was pretty cool. He also said that the developers are being very persistent about keeping TnT in place. Very nice to talk to someone that can actually speak English
scsione889 said:
I agree. The guy I talked to was pretty cool, and even he came out and said xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. He also said that the developers are being very persistent about keeping TnT in place. Very nice to talk to someone that can actually speak English
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Watch out, they read these forums, don't want to get the poor guy fired!
jacindc said:
Watch out, they read these forums, don't want to get the poor guy fired!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
x2 on that! Rule of thumb - if you write something here about a conversation with CS, assume that their management might read it and how that would look.
Just spoke with Mike @ Viewsonic gtablet support. First, they are very nice! Second, Mike said that they are working on a release, but no date yet. Finally, Mike said that they would be posting it to viewsonic.com/gtablet website (and to also check xda-developers.com for other updates).
They also took my e-mail address - hopefully to send out a blast when they are finally able to post it.
BTW, Mike - thanks!
I also have to echo others who have posted here - Thank you, Viewsonic, for having people who can speak English!!
I figured I would do my part as well. I called & spoke to a tech who said they were not releasing it & have no plans to do so. I said its linux based & the GPL says they have to release the source by law. He said they dont support changing the operating system. I said Android is linux based & falls under the GPL. He then transfered me to a senior tech who said:
Tap n tap is proprietary & therefore it doesn’t fall in the GPL. He said the TNT is also horrendous & they want to protect the tap n tap ‘investment’ which is why the source wont be released. They did not ask for my information aside from my first name for the conversation we had. He basically said they were not going to release the source regardless of how many people called. The only way to get it is to sue the company & force them to do so. Obviously, I am not looking to spend more money just to get the source. He knows that, the company knows that & until someone bucks up & hires an attorney, viewsonic doesn’t care.
He did say that they did get a number of calls, he feels for me, he said others have rooted it but tough titties (my summary).
RichTJ99 said:
He basically said they were not going to release the source regardless of how many people called. The only way to get it is to sue the company & force them to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boy, did my blood pressure just skyrocket.
RichTJ99 said:
I figured I would do my part as well. I called & spoke to a tech who said they were not releasing it & have no plans to do so. I said its linux based & the GPL says they have to release the source by law. He said they dont support changing the operating system. I said Android is linux based & falls under the GPL. He then transfered me to a senior tech who said:
Tap n tap is proprietary & therefore it doesn’t fall in the GPL. He said the TNT is also horrendous & they want to protect the tap n tap ‘investment’ which is why the source wont be released. They did not ask for my information aside from my first name for the conversation we had. He basically said they were not going to release the source regardless of how many people called. The only way to get it is to sue the company & force them to do so. Obviously, I am not looking to spend more money just to get the source. He knows that, the company knows that & until someone bucks up & hires an attorney, viewsonic doesn’t care.
He did say that they did get a number of calls, he feels for me, he said others have rooted it but tough titties (my summary).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info.
What I don't understand is why is it that HTC is bound to GPL in that it must release source for its devices even though the majority of HTC devices has the proprietary software, Sense?
I don't think having proprietary software on a device exempts a company from conforming to GPL.
i think they must be new to linux or HTC is very used to dealing with Linux.
The senior tech was sympathetic but was firm in repeating the company plans. Heck their twitter page sais the same exact thing.
It makes me wonder if I should return it.
RichTJ99 said:
i think they must be new to linux or HTC is very used to dealing with Linux.
The senior tech was sympathetic but was firm in repeating the company plans. Heck their twitter page sais the same exact thing.
It makes me wonder if I should return it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree- without source, the gtab won't be able to experience its full potential especially if Viewsonic thinks anyone likes tapntap. Makes me wonder if I should return mine even though (outside of a few annoyances) I really like the device.
Viewsonic has to release source. Their device is Linux based with a proprietary software user interface just like HTC devices. This is ridiculous.
Le Pan Tablet is a awesome and cheap tablet. But after talking with my fellow group members over at Le Pan Group, we've hit a stone. We need the source code. Now we've had insiders who tried too obtain the source code, too no avail.
Now let's take an offensive turn, and start requesting it in the hundreds.
Step 1. E-mail the two address attached.
Step 2. Don't let them blow it off.
Step 3. Please put in your discussion in quote on here.
Keep Pressuring!
Jasmine
[email protected]
Shawn
[email protected]
Rules
1. Don't be offensive; We won't get anywhere.
2. Quote what's happening on your e-mail
3. Good luck.
If you're looking too create a template or find one. Visit Le Pan Group
Case #1133
Kleine eightynine XDA on 12/11/2011 12:44:31 AM
Hey, l am a developer looking too work with the Le Pan Tablet some more. But ran into problems with propriety. Im wondering, are you going too release it? Or has it been released? Can some information be released?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will post more updates when they're available.
Kleine89,
I really admire what you guys are trying to accomplish here. I completely understand and I'm on the same side; unfortunately this isn't the way to do it.
Customer service and technical support is currently run by me training a small team. In fact, I think I just replied to one of your cases lol. We are already swamped with phone calls and cases so this would just increase our workload.
The thing is that we don't have the source code; if I personally had it myself I would probably quietly give it to one of the developers here. It's all up to the software team overseas to release it or not. I've already sent emails to them asking about it and they are discussing it. Seems like they are worried about some copyright issue.
Really sorry to pop your bubble here but please do not flood the support emails with cases regarding the source code. What you could do however, is email these two people asking for it:
Jasmine
[email protected]
Shawn
[email protected]
They are higher up and have direct communication to the software team. As always, please stay professional and respectable.
I'm completely on your side guys; lets get that source code.
Good luck!
nehinbin said:
Kleine89,
I really admire what you guys are trying to accomplish here. I completely understand and I'm on the same side; unfortunately this isn't the way to do it.
Customer service and technical support is currently run by me training a small team. In fact, I think I just replied to one of your cases lol. We are already swamped with phone calls and cases so this would just increase our workload.
The thing is that we don't have the source code; if I personally had it myself I would probably quietly give it to one of the developers here. It's all up to the software team overseas to release it or not. I've already sent emails to them asking about it and they are discussing it. Seems like they are worried about some copyright issue.
Really sorry to pop your bubble here but please do not flood the support emails with cases regarding the source code. What you could do however, is email these two people asking for it:
Jasmine
[email protected]
Shawn
[email protected]
They are higher up and have direct communication to the software team. As always, please stay professional and respectable.
I'm completely on your side guys; lets get that source code.
Good luck!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds good nehinbin - I'll shoot both of them an e-mail.
Honestly it's bull**** because they are using open-source software. Technically it's illegal to keep it hidden away like that. I'm not good on all the legalize and crap but XDA TV and devs here have explained it very well for other companies that tried to do this and they ended up cracking with enough pressure. Hopefully we can get them to the same.
Don't worry though, I'll be totally professional in e-mailing them and won't state where I got the addresses from as I think anyone else who helps with this cause should as well.
Thanks for all your help!
nehinbin said:
Kleine89,
I really admire what you guys are trying to accomplish here. I completely understand and I'm on the same side; unfortunately this isn't the way to do it.
Customer service and technical support is currently run by me training a small team. In fact, I think I just replied to one of your cases lol. We are already swamped with phone calls and cases so this would just increase our workload.
The thing is that we don't have the source code; if I personally had it myself I would probably quietly give it to one of the developers here. It's all up to the software team overseas to release it or not. I've already sent emails to them asking about it and they are discussing it. Seems like they are worried about some copyright issue.
Really sorry to pop your bubble here but please do not flood the support emails with cases regarding the source code. What you could do however, is email these two people asking for it:
Jasmine
[email protected]
Shawn
[email protected]
They are higher up and have direct communication to the software team. As always, please stay professional and respectable.
I'm completely on your side guys; lets get that source code.
Good luck!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your response. Will do. l've changed the guide line now. Sounded like you did. By the way, you've never offended me once, you've been a great help!
Thank you all for respecting my request.
The source code is indeed something that they are legally required to release.
Feel free to send multiple emails on different email accounts. The more pressure they receive, the more they will realize how important it is for them to release it. While you at it, you can also request the ADB drivers and other things.
I have tried them a few time already. The answer I have got is that they don't release source code. What I have got now is I have found the serial port on the 30 pin connecter. Omap3 uses xloader and uboot and will try to boot from external sd card first. I will build my own xloader and uboot and try it out.
Sent from my LG-C900k using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Hey OP. Might want to remove this thread before we anger nehinbin. He's been pretty good about getting out what he can. If he gets more, I'm sure he'll filter it out to us. When this thread expands over time, some may not read those "important" pleas made earlier.
I'll do what I can.
Since I'm all but a lawyer, as well as a professional writer, I'd be happy to draw up a template, or something more formal, requesting such release, if I am provided, by others here within the ascribed forum, with the background documentation, or links thereto, related to this non-conforming company's obligation to do so.
You get the idea.
you guys mentioned the LePan Group a couple of times. How do I join?
I own a TC970 and would be happy to help. I have experience testing and reporting about roms on my Motorola Droid 1.
Just visit my signature or the link. That's the group. Join and done.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
The real designer company is Innocomm, from Taiwan. Maybe we should put some pressure on them.
cas_xp said:
The real designer company is Innocomm, from Taiwan. Maybe we should put some pressure on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That'll be tough too crack though.. Damn..
I think the key is to not give up, hopefully with enough pressure and TC979 coming out soon, they'll release the source for the TC970 since they aren't manufacturing anymore from what I understand.
Keep the pressure on everyone.
Not just kernel source, but also Uboot(iboot) and x-loader(iloader) source, even they rename it.
Here is the link for violation GPL:
http://http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Fix of broken link. One too many http's.
Kleine89 said:
Just visit my signature or the link. That's the group. Join and done.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've tried accessing the group from several threads already and keep getting an invalid social group page. Am I doing anything wrong?
cas_xp said:
Not just kernel source, but also Uboot(iboot) and x-loader(iloader) source, even they rename it.
Here is the link for violation GPL:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Farscaper said:
Fix of broken link. One too many http's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought android was released under the Apache license. So the advice for gnu violations may not apply. It may be better if there were some similar but Apache specific directions on how to deal with violations.
Edit: sorry I'm a new user so I can't be trusted to post links, even in quotes
Android is under Apache license, but it is based on Linux kernel, which is under GPL
sockbot said:
I thought android was released under the Apache license. So the advice for gnu violations may not apply. It may be better if there were some similar but Apache specific directions on how to deal with violations.
Edit: sorry I'm a new user so I can't be trusted to post links, even in quotes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my TC970 (Wi-Fi) using XDA App
I gave it a try with both emails and mentioned the possible GNU violation.
If any luck I will post back here.
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
1. about 'ar6000.ko'
: source code of atheros chip set is not GPL.
We get BSD/GPL dual license from Atheros company.
We choose BSD license, so we do not have any obligation to publish source codeof it.
2. wpa_supplicant
Wpa_supplicant is also BSD/GPL dual license. (and we also choose BSD license)
________________________________________________________________
WPA Supplicant
==============
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Jouni Malinen and contributors
All Rights Reserved.
This program is dual-licensed under both the GPL version 2 and BSD
license. Either license may be used at your option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sadly, they seem to have failed to meet the conditions of the BSD licensing as well. I've sent them another message stating this:
Concerning the atheros AR6000 driver and the wpa_supplicant binary. In denying the making available source for both the ar6000 module and the wpa_supplicant binary, you state that you get both of these with dual GPL/BSD licensing and choose the BSD license. That is fine, however you failed to meet the terms of the BSD license. In particular, for both items, the BSD license states: " Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." You have failed to state your licensing terms and this disclaimer in reference to the above stated items in either the printed documentation or the legal licensing screen embedded within the settings app on the device. As a matter of fact, you've failed to provide any licensing notice for GPL or BSD licensing for either item.
Regardless, I'm asking for these items in order to attempt to FIX BUGS that have been left in the device. It's been well documented in the forums for users of these devices that the wifi chipset drivers are causing crashes, freezes, "sleep of death" situations, etc. Samsung's support has been EXTREMELY unresponsive in attempting to resolve these issue, and I'd be willing to bet that reports of these issue aren't even getting through to your development teams.
Therefore, I once again ask that you release the source for the ar6000 module and wpa_supplicant binary that you have NOT followed the licensing terms of (regardless of which license you've chosen.) Oh, and there's no licensing string embedded in the ar6000.ko module either. modinfo ar6000.ko reveals nothing (for the ar6000.ko module on the GT-P6210 with KL1 firmware.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I don't expect for Samsung to be responsive and/or helpful. I think the best that anyone can expect is that they release an updated firmware that includes the proper licensing information.
Gary
Check and mate Sir. I despise these OEMs. You GO gary. Whatever happened to opensource? What are they so afraid of?
Anything we can do to help, let us know. Even if it means just spamming their inbox.
It's not like I buy the tablet because it has such an epic driver....
I buy it for the hardware...
When your entire OS is practically open source... not open sourcing the drivers for the wireless chip seems like shooting yourself in the foot just because you can.
Thanks garyd9 for fighting the good fight.
When companies do stuff like this for critical things, it _really_ makes me want to spend my money elsewhere.
In regards to the SOD issue, I've noticed that quite a few honeycomb tablets have this issue or something similar to it. I've only personally seen it with Samsung branded ones (10.1 and 7.0+), but have heard similar issues with asus and and acer.
Perhaps its a honeycomb issue?
Gary
give em hell!
If you'd like to help, please click the link near the top of the OP to submit the article to the XDA portal. Perhaps if this issue is shown on the front page, and enough people notice, Samsung could be convinced to "choose" GPL over BSD.
Thank you
Gary
Did you get any useful /proc/last_kmsg dumps of SoDs? Enabling wifi may only be making a difference because of the wakeups.
That said - I am completely shocked that Broadcom's drivers are open source and the ar6000 driver isn't. I've lost a lot of respect for Atheros AND for Samsung over this. I can understand if it's BSD - but seriously, what trade secrets could Samsung have in a freaking Atheros driver, and for something like this, what possible business reason could they have for witholding source for that ONE module? It's freaking stupid.
I was hoping that they'd start becoming more developer-friendly as a result of hiring Cyanogen, but they're being asshats at this point. They donated a device to Codeworkx (or someone else on Teamhacksung) to get CM7 ported, but have not given him a shred of assistance with the porting effort. Basically, trying to get "Supported by CyanogenMod" credits without ANY significant effort.
As much as I hate Sony - SE seems to be doing the best of any manufacturer in terms of supporting people doing platform-level development.
Edits:
You know, this is proving to be a clear and recurring pattern. I have never seen XDA get anything useful out of SamsungJohn for example, all he does is come over, tease us with something, and never follow up.
Over in the Captivate forums - he came in and posted that source code was out, then left without any followup - by the time he made this announcement, people had already found the source and were working with it - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=997098
He then came and teased us with the Samsung Developer Program - guess what, it provides NOTHING for developers doing platform work - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1392847 - John also didn't come and respond to any of the feedback
Prior to that there was the Samsung Developers Conference tease - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1291758 - nothing useful came out of this for anyone doing platform work. In fact, John just dropped off the face of the earth, I'm assuming that not a single person from XDA actually was brought by Samsung to the event, otherwise there would've been a followup/debrief post. Anyway, the "big announcement" was just the Galaxy Nexus release announcement. Big deal - that's a dev phone because Google forces it to be one, it's more of a Google product than a Samsung one.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=954896 (and many similar posts) - He just crossposted to a ton of forums saying something awesome was coming. Something awesome never came. The linked thread from many of his posts doesn't even exist. Actually, most of his 67 posts are just crossposting this tease - NOTHING ever came out of it.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-shows-affection-to-cyanogenmod-gives-its-devs-a-free-ga/ - As a PR stunt, Samsung threw a Galaxy S II over the wall to one of the CM developers. Without a doubt, Dan Hillenbrand (codeworkx) and Atin Malvaya (atinm) have not received any support from Samsung since Sammy threw a device over to them. The GSII is likely to be codeworkx's last Samsung device, he has become so frustrated with Samsung (Check his posts in the CM9 thread for I9100). Compare this to Sony Ericsson's effort here - http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/wp/2011/09/28/sony-ericsson-supports-independent-developers/ - They have given FreeXperia MASSIVE amounts of support, and it shows - http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/sony-ericsson-xperia-support
imnuts07 asked for some help regarding Droid Charge kernel source issues - https://twitter.com/#!/SamsungJohn/status/152835654303236097 - All he responded with was "how can we help" - no further response, imnuts07 didn't get anywhere until jt1134 gave him some pointers. (It turned out to be more proprietary module vermagic bull****...)
After all this, it's clear that with regards to platform developers, Samsung's intent is to do the bare minimum to meet their legal obligations with the GPL and no more. Even source code which they COULD release and have no valid reason for withholding is withheld if they are able to (such as the ar6000 module source code). I thought that the Galaxy S II was a step forward towards devices with 100% open source kernels, however it is clear that the GSII was just a fluke. I'm getting sick and tired of dealing with module vermagic headaches. I've spent at this point a few hundred hours of my spare time working on improvements to various products of theirs(maintaining kernels for three different products - Samsung Infuse, AT&T Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Player 5.0), and their consistent message back has been "go away, screw you, stop bothering us".
There may be a small bit of hope - I've been contacted by someone at samsung (perhaps due to your rant combined with my constant pestering on their open source website.) It isn't much, but the first line of collaborating is communication. They seem more interested in fixing the bugs than sharing code, but I'll take what I can get.
Oh, and the last_ksmg memory was corrupted when the one person who had adb, my kernel and root installed was able to check it. (As you know, the file won't be generated if header area for the ram console can't be found or is in bad shape.)
We'll see what happens, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the lunar new year coming up.
Take care
Gary
so how many people do we need to sue??
chrisrotolo said:
so how many people do we need to sue??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No lawsuits required. Although... that might explain the poor customer support from Samsung. Perhaps they've been afraid that Apple will sue them for patent infringement if they help a customer?
Not that I've ever had any GOOD support from Apple... mostly just clueless kids taking guesses. Even their so-called "geniuses" are mostly clueless.
In typing that, I realized that I'm probably one of the hardest people in the world to provide technical support to. When I have a question, it's only after I've exhausted the combined knowledge of myself and whatever google can provide... meaning the only good response from phone support would be "Would you like to cross-ship an exchange or wait for the repair?"
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Speaking from personal experience ,when dealing (even on corporate high level) with Samsung there is nothing to gain but some weight due to stress.
They do care( up to a degree) about some customer relations and I've seen very nice, honest and helpful people there. But this is where it all ends.
The farther you go the worse it gets. Somehow they got this Apple attitude of profit and secrecy all over their structure. Apple calls themselves "innovators" to reason the secrecy, but Sammy are nowhere near. If I was to say they do act like copycat killers I risk getting called names- though they "adapt" almost everything, from design to business models. The Korean HQ has drawn quite strict regulations for the rest of the world.
We should remember that Samsung is a HUGE corporation. Android devices D&R is a tiny faction, ruled like in Middle Ages. They have the road map and they ever raise the stake every time. From my point of view, I sincerely understand those people for not jumping out with the source code. If you get paid 100k+, you don't help anyone but yourself. The decisions are not theirs. The people taking decisions don't give a rat's a55 about GNU or Linux, Minux or whatever. On top of that, there are some people that MIGHT have some influence in changing this policy ( the brown bearded, we call them) but those are the pride ridden SOBs.
You can read this from their mobile device history. They had to go into that, given the fact they build everything, from ships to home furniture. They got a share of the market because they were big and had some bright minds there. I know for a fact that, at the beginning, working @ cell phone dept was like sentenced to prison, only the undesirable but indispensable were sent there. Huh, those people left, some for Apple and some for others ( LG,Sony and Hyundai). Panasonic and Toshiba flops are some examples of how, in a degree, cultural burdens lead to a fail. HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce. On the other hand, Samsung can get a write-off for their mobile dept. without a blink. Bada is a perfect example. It was close to write off so they decided to make it open- see HP. They are too big to follow rules and beside being big, they hold the power few have- the power TO BEND rules, that is.
Getting any serious, development like help from Samsung is close to what ''Acts of God" are described in car insurance.
htc9420 said:
HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
garyd9 said:
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't be so quick to judge him...
I just got the impression that the point of the post was to promote HTC while bashing everyone else.
Perhaps I spoke (typed) too soon. If so, I apologize.
No, the HTC thing was just one line, and what I perceived as some general comments on why some manufacturers (Panasonic, Toshiba) seem to have kind of flopped in the market.
There was definitive Samsung-bashing - but he's just joining with us in frustration.
Check PMs gary.
garyd9 said:
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Gary,
I'm the developer for a CyanogenMod port for the Samsung phone (GT-I5500). Samsung have released their source for an older version of the AR6kSDK, which I have put on github here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.0. This source is quite old, and doesn't support combo scanning, but it's newer than the ath6kl source release contained in the 2.6.35 kernel.
Last night I scoured the internet trying to find some newer source, and came across a release by Sony for one of their e-book reader products. I have uploaded the source onto github which you can check here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.1
The above git's description links to the location of the original source tarball on Sony's server, but if you prefer, just clone the git and checkout the first commit, as it's the unmodified source.
I have made some changes already to get the module to initialize properly, but at present it's not even scanning properly. Perhaps it will work better for you without modifications, especially if your device is not AR6003_REV2 (which is the revision on my phone).
chrisrotolo said:
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my friend mat has done this for me as he knows his stuff. it was a very powerful letter i must say haha. just waiting for a response
gary, thanks for all your efforts man! this is my first samsung android device, have they always been this bad in witholding source?