Database Info

Honeycomb Rumor

Before we start, it may appear Motorola and Samsung will be the only ones who will have a Honeycomb product until at least May/June. The reasons being:-
1. Honeycomb supply to manufacturers have been delayed until May/June. I dont know exactly what this means except that the manufacturers I work with cannot get access to Honeycomb for their products (but it may be related to the next rumor).
2. Honeycomb wont be open sourced and a major manufacturer is working with Google on trying to secure licensing.
Sorry I cant be more specific than this. The second rumor contradicts everything Google has done so far, but if I mention the manufacturer involved, it lends weight to the rumor.
Does anyone else have any further information to collaborate/debunk these rumors?
EDIT: When I say Honeycomb wont be open sourced, I meant Google plans to close source it and Honeycomb will require a license.

I'm gonna call BS on all of the above.
#1. New member, first post, no sources or company names given.
#2. Honeycomb SDK is already published. Functional installs of Honeycomb can and have already been built from this.
#3. Licensing means they CANNOT closed source it
Either present us with some evidence, or quit spouting rubbish.

FloatingFatMan said:
I'm gonna call BS on all of the above.
#1. New member, first post, no sources or company names given.
#2. Honeycomb SDK is already published. Functional installs of Honeycomb can and have already been built from this.
#3. Licensing means they CANNOT closed source it
Either present us with some evidence, or quit spouting rubbish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^ couldn't put it better myself.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App

There is a reason why this is a new account, if it isnt obvious to you.
I am not asking for speculative opinions, I am wondering if there is anyone else in the industry hearing either of these rumors.

Atleast give some sources?
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App

Sorry, the market for real Honeycomb products is actually very small at the moment so any hints will reveal too much. Please, if anyone else has heard anything just PM me.

Small huh? There are plenty of devices coming out quite soon. Acer's Iconia Tab A500, for example, has just had its FCC approval granted and will be out mid-April. That's running Honeycomb, so kinda slaps your "rumours" in the chops about it not being available until June.

FloatingFatMan said:
#3. Licensing means they CANNOT closed source it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What licence exactly?
FYI Android itself is licensed under the Apache software license, which is a non-copyleft licence.
If Google so chose, they could keep Honeycomb itself closed source, and their only open source requirement would be publishing the source for the linux kernel on shipping devices.
Regards,
Dave

foxmeister said:
What licence exactly?
FYI Android itself is licensed under the Apache software license, which is a non-copyleft licence.
If Google so chose, they could keep Honeycomb itself closed source, and their only open source requirement would be publishing the source for the linux kernel on shipping devices.
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they've already released it under open license.

FloatingFatMan said:
Because they've already released it under open license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The latest release of Android released under the Apache Software Licence is Gingerbread - that can't be taken back.
However, anything built on top of that source can be closed source if the developer so wishes, and that includes Honeycomb!
I still expect Google to release Honeycomb under the ASL, but the point it - *they don't have to!*.
Regards,
Dave

Seriously guys,do you really think that in times like these we're living,Google will abandon the idea that made their OS so successful?I highly doubt that...

tolis626 said:
Seriously guys,do you really think that in times like these we're living,Google will abandon the idea that made their OS so successful?I highly doubt that...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I absolutely agree with you - I cannot fathom any reason for Google to make Honeycomb close source. This rumor (#2) is from a bigger company than the company that provided the first rumor.

Interesting news ! Thanks for the share !

FloatingFatMan said:
I'm gonna call BS on all of the above.
#1. New member, first post, no sources or company names given.
[...]
Either present us with some evidence, or quit spouting rubbish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same as the troll who claimed Samsung were trying to charge networks for software updates yet everyone was willing to believe that...
I'm not arguing that this looks and smells like trolling, merely attempting to highlight that plenty of people round here seem to be quite happy to 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

Sorry to double-post but Engadget has an article on the matter.
Here's a quote from Google:
Android 3.0, Honeycomb, was designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes and improves on Android favorites such as widgets, multi-tasking, browsing, notifications and customization. While we're excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we've decided not to release Honeycomb to open source. We're committed to providing Android as an open platform across many device types and will publish the source as soon as it's ready.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely no mention of licences.
It does, on the other hand, talk of Honeycomb 'not being ready, which ties in to a lot of reviews and impressions of it as an OS.
Again, I feel this is very similar to the 'Samsung charging for upgrades' rumour - something takes a little bit longer than normal to happen and a minority start making up ridiculous rumours to try and explain it.

Step666 said:
Sorry to double-post but
Here's a quote from Google:
Absolutely no mention of licences.
It does, on the other hand, talk of Honeycomb 'not being ready, which ties in to a lot of reviews and impressions of it as an OS.
Again, I feel this is very similar to the 'Samsung charging for upgrades' rumour - something takes a little bit longer than normal to happen and a minority start making up ridiculous rumours to try and explain it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not sure whether my post occurred before the Engadget article or not, but this article certainly validates rumor #1. It would be interesting to see how this affects manufacturers who have announced Honeycomb products (one poster mentioned Acer earlier). I know some are launching Gingerbread instead, which isnt ideal.
While the link between the two rumors is subject to interpretation, the two rumors were taken from different sources. The second rumor is less believable (even to me) however, the source is from a significantly larger company.

No, it doesn't validate rumour number one.
You claimed that manufacturers are unable to get a copy of Honeycomb - there's a big difference between Google publicly releasing the source code and passing copies of it to manufacturers.
Do you really think that when Google released Froyo's or GIngerbread's source code that that was the first time HTC, Samsung etc had seen it?
I really don't.
Also, as has been pointed out already, the fact that there are Honeycomb devices coming from a range of manufacturers goes some way to disproving your point.
As for the believability of your rumours, unless you can back them up with any sort of proof, I don't see any reason to believe either of them.

Well the op might be on to something at least. I'm not buying that top tier manufacturers won't be able to get the code as LG and Acer among others are going to be releasing tablets with honeycomb in the coming weeks.
http://www.androidcentral.com/google-not-open-sourcing-honeycomb-says-bloomberg

Thank you so much for this article - this is another source verifying the difficulty of manufacturers getting honeycomb source code. There is no doubt the Tier 1 companies will get preferential access to the code - the question is, who is seen as Tier 1 by Google.
Perhaps in regards to licensing, this may be just a legal formality for companies to get access to Honeycomb at the moment, and it is unclear whether these licenses will cost anything.
Thank you again, this has been a great help. This is a third party source we can use to explain to our clients why we cannot launch honeycomb at the date we promised.

I am glad Google isn't releasing the code so cheap companies can't just stick Honeycomb on crap devices and make it look bad.
Sent from my Incredible with the XDA Premium App.

[Q] Android and "Openess"

While I know this might not be the greatest place to put this here, and I'm not trying to start any flame wars, but I figured because this topic implies the bettering of our phones, I thought I should put this here.
With the recent Google affair about not releasing the source code on Honeycomb, how open can we expect Android to be? Technically speaking, the only open thing about Android is the app store, and even that has seen better days.
While some people think that Google is doing this just because they feel like it, I honestly believe that they rushed somewhere and need to patch the hole before more malware-like apps enter the app store and wreak havoc on Honeycomb.
So I leave the question here, what do you guys think about this whole ordeal, and has this effected your views on Google in anyway?

They will release it
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App

They have to release it, it is open source.

liorweitz said:
They have to release it, it is open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't if they dont want to!
Go and read up on the Apache Software Licence, which Android is licensed under.
That being said, I fully expect Google to release the source code when they are good and ready.
Regards,
Dave

I also believe that they abuse the term open, anyway.
Sent from my Droid using XDA Premium App

Protocol 7 said:
I also believe that they abuse the term open, anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Openness means, among others, that you can grab sources, close them and release only binaries. Otherwise it would be copyleft, not true openness.

[APPS] All 8 Yongzh Emulators

Well, since his emulators were pulled down from the market (bastards at Google seem to be removing all emulators from the market now) and Yongzh was awesome enough to add them to Slideme.org FOR FREE for (from what I'm hearing) 2-weeks, I decided to download them all now and Zip them into one nice convenient file for XDA to enjoy.
**THESE ARE PULLED DIRECTLY FROM YONGZH'S SLIDEME PAGE AS OF MAY 29th, 2011**
If he does not want them here for any reason, I have absolutely no problem removing them. I just figured it'd make it easier for those that didn't happen to read on the web that he was making them available.
ENJOY!

I have no problem with these being posted for now, but once the two week window closes, we will have to remove them from XDA in order to maintain legality. Also, thanks for letting us know about their new whereabouts.
Thanks.

willverduzco said:
I have no problem with these being posted for now, but once the two week window closes, we will have to remove them from XDA in order to maintain legality. Also, thanks for letting us know about their new whereabouts.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely understandable, thanks for allowing them to stay.
IF he keeps them available longer, will you allow them to stay here as well?

Legality? Hasn't he been using open source code, selling it for profit, and then not releasing the source code or crediting the original authors of said code?

otakuloser said:
Legality? Hasn't he been using open source code, selling it for profit, and then not releasing the source code or crediting the original authors of said code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah he was making a profit off of open source code. All his apps had quite a few downloads, so in that respect I don't feel sorry for him.

Real64

Guys search the market for Real64, It's a N64 Emulator, It looks like someone has just ripped of N64oid and repacked it even the icon is the same
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.advcaveman.real64

So..
Does it have rumble?
Sent from my Xperia PLAY R800i using XDA App

The author claims it's a port of mupen64plus, an open source emulator, and he seems really intent in describing the components of the emulator. Either he's a very cheeky ripoff or it's the real deal.

Its clearly a rip off. the Gui and even the app icon is a complete copy of yongzh's n64oid.
heres the legit n64oid http://slideme.org/application/n64oid
edit: heck even the version number is the same!

Logseman said:
The author claims it's a port of mupen64plus, an open source emulator, and he seems really intent in describing the components of the emulator. Either he's a very cheeky ripoff or it's the real deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The description is a simple cut-and-paste of yongzh's description.
If you guys looked closer, youll see about 6 or 7 N64oid's uploaded to the market, just look at the other emulators screenshots, they didnt even bother using their own! That is seriously not fair that a legit dev like yongzh gets booted from market but the android market team still lets this drivel stay. *sigh* I dont care if he didnt use his own source code, he was the first to actually bring us a n64 emu to android and he did that very well. Damn.

I stand corrected.

He's going to get banned from the market for the same reason Yongzh did. You can't repack or port an open source project and sell it for personal gain. That's the whole point of an open source license.
Don't get your hopes up on buying this and getting a constantly evolving or improving emulator.

Clyzm said:
You can't repack or port an open source project and sell it for personal gain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A common misconception:
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms [The 4 Freedoms]. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Probably is the guy who was pretending to have a ps3 emulator in dev and asking for donations.

He even added yongzh to his credits.
Since yongzh's version was paid, isn't it illegal? You can't exactly take paid software, rip it off completely, then sell it for your own profit, right?

speedyink said:
He even added yongzh to his credits.
Since yongzh's version was paid, isn't it illegal? You can't exactly take paid software, rip it off completely, then sell it for your own profit, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yongzh took somebody elses work (mupen64plus) changed it and sold it for money which he shouldn't really do (although his emulator is awesome!). this dude stole yongzh's work and made absolutely no changes, which is alot worse imo. it even seems insulting and lazy that he would use the same icon and description.

bubblegumballon said:
Yongzh took somebody elses work (mupen64plus) changed it and sold it for money which he shouldn't really do (although his emulator is awesome!). this dude stole yongzh's work and made absolutely no changes, which is alot worse imo. it even seems insulting and lazy that he would use the same icon and description.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm completely aware of his ripping off mupen64plus, but this is different, he at least put SOME work into it in order to make it compatible with android. He also needs to keep putting in time to update it, so I'll pay him as incentive to keep working on it.

Logseman said:
A common misconception:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Charging a fee for distribution is a very different thing from re-packing an existing program and selling it.
Buying an Ubuntu disc is paying for distribution. Buying Ubuntu and giving the distributor profit is misuse of open source.
Yongzh's account was pulled from the market because his Super Nintendo emulator was pretty much a repacked version of Snes9x and sold for profit. Yongzh can now make the same claim about Real64 if he actually ported Mupen64 properly himself, and it wasn't just another Java wrapper.
You know what, I stand corrected:
GNU Article said:
You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
However, having read through that, there's a few more infringements here. Both Yongzh and this new developer of Real64 are distributing a version of Mupen64 (and in Yongzh's case, Snes9x) without consent of the original developers, and for profit. If the Mupen64 devs decide to go after them and prove that their software is similar enough, this can still be taken off the market. At this point it's less of an open source issue and more of a copyright issue.

Clyzm said:
Charging a fee for distribution is a very different thing from re-packing an existing program and selling it.
Buying an Ubuntu disc is paying for distribution. Buying Ubuntu and giving the distributor profit is misuse of open source.
Yongzh's account was pulled from the market because his Super Nintendo emulator was pretty much a repacked version of Snes9x and sold for profit. Yongzh can now make the same claim about Real64 if he actually ported Mupen64 properly himself, and it wasn't just another Java wrapper.
You know what, I stand corrected:
However, having read through that, there's a few more infringements here. Both Yongzh and this new developer of Real64 are distributing a version of Mupen64 (and in Yongzh's case, Snes9x) without consent of the original developers, and for profit. If the Mupen64 devs decide to go after them and prove that their software is similar enough, this can still be taken off the market. At this point it's less of an open source issue and more of a copyright issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do i go about getting a refund for this?
I bought it the other day but can no longer download via the market.
-RR

h20wakebum said:
How do i go about getting a refund for this?
I bought it the other day but can no longer download via the market.
-RR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That may be my fault It was there yesterday before i wrote an email to google complaining that it's a rip off of n64oid and even if its not, it's breaking the GPL rules sorry

Logseman said:
A common misconception:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The overlooked 5th rule. Feel free to take the work that was taken and sold for personal gain if it is against your personal morals.

NeoandGeo said:
The overlooked 5th rule. Feel free to take the work that was taken and sold for personal gain if it is against your personal morals.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So does this mean I can take N64oid and add touch pad support and sell it ?
Because that seems to be what n4oid did

subcu1ture said:
So does this mean I can take N64oid and add touch pad support and sell it ?
Because that seems to be what n4oid did
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'd buy it from you...
in the dark alley of course

Clyzm said:
Charging a fee for distribution is a very different thing from re-packing an existing program and selling it.
Buying an Ubuntu disc is paying for distribution. Buying Ubuntu and giving the distributor profit is misuse of open source.
Yongzh's account was pulled from the market because his Super Nintendo emulator was pretty much a repacked version of Snes9x and sold for profit. Yongzh can now make the same claim about Real64 if he actually ported Mupen64 properly himself, and it wasn't just another Java wrapper.
You know what, I stand corrected:
However, having read through that, there's a few more infringements here. Both Yongzh and this new developer of Real64 are distributing a version of Mupen64 (and in Yongzh's case, Snes9x) without consent of the original developers, and for profit. If the Mupen64 devs decide to go after them and prove that their software is similar enough, this can still be taken off the market. At this point it's less of an open source issue and more of a copyright issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do not need to ask for consent from anyone, including the authors. The GPL allows you to sell the software, not just for distribution. Jesus, it's all in the document if you'd read it. SNES9x's license allows it as well.
Read, educate yourself: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

subcu1ture said:
So does this mean I can take N64oid and add touch pad support and sell it ?
Because that seems to be what n4oid did
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, as long as the source that you changed would be licensed under the GPL and freely available.

Emulators and battery life

So far, I've tried the tiger emulators, and a couple of the oid ones.
Anyone know of some that are efficient and thus great for battery life? Any that support cheat codes? Tiger tried adding cheats but they didn't work, and his apps were pulled from the market.
Sent from my R800

I just played Zelda for 5 - 6 hours on N64oid and battery is down to 15%.

Which version are you using? Zelda won't run properly for me, and I sure as hell don't get that kinda battery life playing Mario
Sent from my R800

Orcania of Time.
Are you the guy who is still on 2.3.2?

subcu1ture said:
I just played Zelda for 5 - 6 hours on N64oid and battery is down to 15%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We all have to cope with this. Emulators require 10 times the processing power of the host. Which in this case is the n64.
Sent from my R800i using XDA App

subcu1ture said:
Orcania of Time.
Are you the guy who is still on 2.3.2?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant which version of n64oid lol
I just updated to the latest and suddenly everything runs perfectly.
Sent from my R800

captain67 said:
I meant which version of n64oid lol
I just updated to the latest and suddenly everything runs perfectly.
Sent from my R800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
obviously most people will be using n64oid version 2.2.3 the latest version. Unless they pirated it

AndroHero said:
obviously most people will be using n64oid version 2.2.3 the latest version. Unless they pirated it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or you keep deleting the slideme.org app
2.2.3 is the version i am using.
But i was meaning are you still on 2.3.2 gingerbread?

subcu1ture said:
I just played Zelda for 5 - 6 hours on N64oid and battery is down to 15%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow.. Thats grand!
Sent from my Xperia PLAY R800i using XDA App

AndroHero said:
obviously most people will be using n64oid version 2.2.3 the latest version. Unless they pirated it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean pirated from a guy who stole open source software and is reselling it?
It is free software, and there is nothing wrong with going around paying for this particular piece of software.

Free open source software, in the FSF sense of the term, includes reselling it among its freedoms. What license does Mupen 64 have?

It's just my personal belief that open source stays free throughout anyone trying to do anything different with it. It's the only thing I will take without paying, and not feel guilty for.

NeoandGeo said:
It's just my personal belief that open source stays free throughout anyone trying to do anything different with it. It's the only thing I will take without paying, and not feel guilty for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
End of the day yongzh spent time and effort porting the emulator, and he continues to spend his time and effort to improve the emulator.
Imo this constitutes a job. And in a civil society where people have morals. People get paid for there hard work. Your morals might be diffrent though
How would you feel if your boss said. Dya know what, I've decided i'm not paying you for the last weeks work?

That is a little different, and I have learned to stay away from analogies as they can all be picked apart no matter how much one invests in believing it is the be all end all.
I will only see fit to pay for his work if he creates a project himself, and not take another free project tweak it and charge for it. I believe that Google made the right decision on not allowing him to charge for a free open source project, and that allows me to use the "free" work with a clear conscience.

NeoandGeo said:
That is a little different, and I have learned to stay away from analogies as they can all be picked apart no matter how much one invests in believing it is the be all end all.
I will only see fit to pay for his work if he creates a project himself, and not take another free project tweak it and charge for it. I believe that Google made the right decision on not allowing him to charge for a free open source project, and that allows me to use the "free" work with a clear conscience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yet google allow people to sell real64 on the market. There application is clearly stolen off yongzh.
Ooh i just checked I think my email to google got real64 kicked off the market
Either way compare the two
http://www.appbrain.com/app/real64-(n64-emulator)/com.advcaveman.real64
http://slideme.org/application/n64oid

The Real64 app was worse than what Yonghz did. But both of these are in the wrong. N64oid should not be paid for at all unless we get something in writing from the original Mupen64 team signing off on him charging for the emulator.
Until then, we should all treat it as fair game.

This thread is gonna end up getting locked like the last one at this rate.
Sent from my R800

NeoandGeo said:
The Real64 app was worse than what Yonghz did. But both of these are in the wrong. N64oid should not be paid for at all unless we get something in writing from the original Mupen64 team signing off on him charging for the emulator.
Until then, we should all treat it as fair game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mupen64 is licensed under v2 of the GPL, which allows the sale of software licensed under it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic
He's allowed to sell it. He just needs to make the source available in some way if he made any direct changes to it. Simply creating an Android wrapper that makes calls to the software in question wouldn't violate that. Even offering the source only by snail mail is enough to satisfy the GPL.
If you were right, commercial Linux distributions wouldn't be able to sell retail copies of their distros - and they do and have for years with no complaint from anyone.
So yeah... /thread.

So it is alright if it is obtained by not buying it. Which we should all do, instead of encouraging people to throw their money away at this developer.

NeoandGeo said:
So it is alright if it is obtained by not buying it. Which we should all do, instead of encouraging people to throw their money away at this developer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, what don't you understand?? Your not allowed to steal it, and Yonghz is allowed to sell it. The reason Yonghz and his emulators were kicked off the market, was that he didnt make the source code available on request, as per the GPL rules.