Database Info

Submitting Patches to the Repo / Forking

Hi all!
I'm an android developer, and I regularly read the official android-dev and android-porting lists, but on all the fan blogs and from lurking here, it seems that all the good development is coming from XDA-dev!
So why don't you guys do some patch submission? Features like auto-rotating browser and the transition animations should really, really be in the main source, but the official Android team have their thumbs up their asses in regards to UI/polished stuff.. (I bet they're too busy working on the lower level cellular stuff and the ARM-generating stuff like in the *flinger libraries).
So you guys should make some patch submissions over at (http://source.android.com/submit-patches)!
That way, the next RC will have all of these lovely features you guys have implemented.
((Or, alternately (but more ambitiously), fork the entire codebase. Strip out the DRM and add a framework for native code execution. Perhaps that's a pipe dream, though..))
Thoughts?

I think forking the Android source would be a very nice touch, if Google doesn't pull it together. We could still add on to stuff from the official code, but add on all the special stuff that Google refuses to (they've said they won't add the ability to change CPU speed, etc).

Oh, absolutely, there would be numerous advantages to having a fork. It should definitely be discussed! I'm afraid that Google may be trying to exert too much control on their platform in ways that we don't always want, so there is nothing legally to stop us from forking and maintain a more badass tree. GitHub could provide the hosting.
Of course, it might be a waste of effort. If you submit the badass patches, then the good features here go out into all the phones in the next versions. Work on the fork, and only the selected users who are able to flash their own phones can use it, unless some Chinese companies start using it or something like that.
Names?
XanDroid? I'd rather like to see Mandroid with in a slick black theme..

Well to me it seems like the only people doing cool things right now with android have rooted devices
So why cant you ***** a little on google lists to make them actually do some work. The Roadmap @ http://source.android.com/roadmap is a joke. Either they give us root or they start working imo. =)

Seanambers said:
Well to me it seems like the only people doing cool things right now with android have rooted devices
So why cant you ***** a little on google lists to make them actually do some work. The Roadmap @ http://source.android.com/roadmap is a joke. Either they give us root or they start working imo. =)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think that the release of the new unlocked Dev phones will change things?

Yeah it'll most probably shake things up a bit, however what about all those that already have a g1?
I for sure isnt buying a new phone to get root.

But even so, we're still talking about modifications to the OS and the packaged applications, which would be released in the next RC version, so even non-root users would get the features in the next update, along with anyone running Android on something besides a G1.

my .02
Id say submit some of the things found here and see what goog does with it, if they openly add these things that need root at this point and let xda dev participate in the OS with such submitions...then cool thats how open source works best, when anybody can add to the project, a phone OS utopia
If they ignore it then, a fork is the way to go but give google a chance to do the right thing first before, just leaving them in the xdadevs dust with a custom distro...

bhang said:
Id say submit some of the things found here and see what goog does with it, if they openly add these things that need root at this point and let xda dev participate in the OS with such submitions...then cool thats how open source works best, when anybody can add to the project, a phone OS utopia
If they ignore it then, a fork is the way to go but give google a chance to do the right thing first before, just leaving them in the xdadevs dust with a custom distro...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google has refused to add multiple features. They feel that they aren't necessary, or that your average consumer wouldn't want it (main thing I can think of atm is CPU speed).
If they don't add the features we request, simply because *they* don't like them, then a fork would get us exactly what we want/need. After we fork it, and the number of users using stock Android plummet, maybe they will listen .

I see a problem with forking... who says what is allowed and not allowed? That is the main problem. Now if you wanted to just add an app that would be one thing but there is not going to be an easy way to do this.

Gary13579 said:
Google has refused to add multiple features. They feel that they aren't necessary, or that your average consumer wouldn't want it (main thing I can think of atm is CPU speed).
If they don't add the features we request, simply because *they* don't like them, then a fork would get us exactly what we want/need. After we fork it, and the number of users using stock Android plummet, maybe they will listen .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given the number of G1s with modified fw installed compared to the total number of sold units, I somehow doubt the number of users is going to plummet.
IMHO it would be a needless fork unless some new or considerably modified features were planned. Better to just patch the functionality into the official builds, if at all possible.

I'm not convinced by that logic. There would be an important difference between a fork and patched versions of the firmware, as a fork would have a totally different design philosophy. Whereas Android is focused on speed (or whatever the hell they're concentrating on..but to be honest, I think they're dicking about over there), Mandroid could have more focus on polished features and low-level access. ((And! No DRM, and I'd like to see some more security features..ZRTP?))
Either way, I think it's really important for the success of the open future of phones that the open source community take and give back. There's no need for the back-and-forth like with, say, PSP-cracking as we have the source code and we are allowed to do whatever we like with it. If we just keep patching what they give us and keeping the modifications closed, then we aren't really in control.
As for project management, I'm absolutely sure there are people who are capable of maintaining an active open-source project such as this, as long as there is a well-thought out design philosophy. I'd love to be involved, if enough people are willing to give it a shot. But, first, it'd be easier just to submit patches.

Miserlou! said:
PSP-cracking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PSP cracking is insanely different. If you were in that scene, does my name look familiar ? Was net admin at toc2rta/malloc, admin of psp-hacks.com, worked with a lot of people on a lot of stuff that I barely remember as it was years ago .
But for the PSP, we were working with a system we knew nothing about. So yes, Android would be a lot simpler to work with. But if Google doesn't listen to us, it's not like it would really matter.

neoobs said:
I see a problem with forking... who says what is allowed and not allowed? That is the main problem. Now if you wanted to just add an app that would be one thing but there is not going to be an easy way to do this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is licensed by both the Apache Software License (do whatever you want with it) and the General Public License (do whatever you want with it as long as you make the source code available for others). We are certainly allowed to do this, but the problem lies with the G1 owners running the official RC30. They wont have the rights required to flash the image which leaves them out of the party.

2 words
The community(did I spell that right?)
Bhang

Datruesurfer said:
Android is licensed by both the Apache Software License (do whatever you want with it) and the General Public License (do whatever you want with it as long as you make the source code available for others). We are certainly allowed to do this, but the problem lies with the G1 owners running the official RC30. They wont have the rights required to flash the image which leaves them out of the party.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant who is going to the be decision maker of what features will be added... The Community as a whole? What about some that want it but only 25% of the community wants it?

neoobs said:
I meant who is going to the be decision maker of what features will be added... The Community as a whole? What about some that want it but only 25% of the community wants it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what project leads are for. And hypothetically when enough people are dissatisfied with the xda-dev fork they will go and create their own fork. Except I don't think there is any real argument yet to go and create an xda-dev fork in the first place. Forking an operating system meaningfully is not a weekend project for a single person.

I have said it before, let's give them a bit more of a chance, a fork isn't something a guy can do in a weekend.
So let's see what happens in RC3X, the next release will give folks a bbetter idea of where their heads are at. If enough of the community is unhappy there will be a fork
Bhang

Cyanogens Current State!

The current state..
The last few days have been difficult. What has become clear now is that the Android Open Source Project is a framework. It’s licensed in such a way so that anyone can take it, modify it to their needs, and redistribute it as they please. Android belongs to everyone. This also means that big companies likes Google, HTC, Motorola, and whomever else can add their own pieces to it and share these pieces under whatever license they choose.
I’ve made lots of changes myself to the AOSP code, and added in code from lots of others. Building a better Droid, right?
The issue that’s raised is the redistribution of Google’s proprietary applications like Maps, GTalk, Market, and YouTube. These are not part of the open source project and are only part of “Google Experience” devices. They are Google’s intellectual property and I intend to respect that. I will no longer be distributing these applications as part of CyanogenMod. But it’s OK. None of the go-fast stuff that I do involves any of this stuff anyway. We need these applications though, because we all rely so heavily on their functionality. I’d love for Google to hand over the keys to the kingdom and let us all have it for free, but that’s not going to happen. And who can blame them?
There are lots of things we can do as end-users and modders, though, without violating anyones rights. Most importantly, we are entitled to back up our software. Since I don’t work with any of these closed source applications directly, what I intend to do is simply ship the next version of CyanogenMod as a “bare bones” ROM. You’ll be able to make calls, MMS, take photos, etc. In order to get our beloved Google sync and applications back, you’ll need to make a backup first. I’m working on an application that will do this for you.
The idea is that you’ll be able to Google-ify your CyanogenMod installation, with the applications and files that shipped on YOUR device already. Or, you can just use the basic ROM if you want. It will be perfectly functional if you don’t use the Google parts. I will include an alternative app store (SlideMe, or AndAppStore, not decided yet) with the basic ROM so that you can get your applications in case you don’t have a Google Experience device.
I’ll have more updates soon as I get all the code hammered out.
Thanks for all the support thru all of this.
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/the-current-state

The stuff Dreams are really made of....
I knew! Where there's a will there's a way! You can't keep a real boss down! Cyanogen I look forward to playing with this new stuff in the works. Rage on brother rage on, I for one honestly didn't want to leave android really, but I will continue to research back-up plans in case Google has anymore monkey wrenches laying around itching to be thrown...Good luck Cyanogen. We all owe you donations...real recognizes real! Dueces

This is great news Thank you!

fkn awesome!

this exactly what i thought and hoped would happen. everyone got in a tizy over nothing. so we have to back up before we flash which is just another way that the basic moder like myself can better understand the phone.

Does this means we need to wipe every time we flash a new rom?

tomvleeuwen said:
What do you guys think of sharing the 4.0.4 version over p2p networks?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everyone already has it.

Great
This sounds good, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I think they got upset when the new market app was released before they could get it out. They had to do something, but I think it will die down.

don't go there
tomvleeuwen said:
What do you guys think of sharing the 4.0.4 version over p2p networks?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cyanogen is doing his best to respect Google's legitimate copyrights, so suggesting that XDA get involved in distributing proprietary applications without a license only serves to undermine what is going on here. Mods: please remove.

ei8htohms said:
Cyanogen is doing his best to respect Google's legitimate copyrights, so suggesting that XDA get involved in distributing proprietary applications without a license only serves to undermine what is going on here. Mods: please remove.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I posted this in another thread but it would seem to be pertinent to here too:
Loccy said:
Let's face it, strictly speaking, all ROMs are warez.
Personally I'm surprised that it wasn't the Hero devs who got into trouble first, but this was all just a matter of time. I never understood the bizarre fixation that cropped up recently with QuickOffice and everyone going "omfg it's warez can't include it in romz!!!111!1one!". Why QuickOffice and not, say HTC_IME, or Work Email, or any number of other binary blobs that ROM cookers include as a matter of course now that have been "acquired" from non-orthodox source?
The Hero ROMs, let's face it, give people a means of "turning" their old phone into the latest and greatest HTC device. Each stable Hero ROM on the Dream/Magic potentially means a Hero device purchase lost. HTC are being far more hit in the pocket than Google are here - which is why I'm surprised the cease and desist wasn't directed at them.
I do think, however, this site and the people who run it are going to have to pick a side at some point. Either the position is "this is a site for developers, and as long as copyrighted material is not hosted on here in a fashion that would make us liable*, we will not suppress the work of individual devs". Or, their position is "no copyrighted material in any form, be that in the form to links to offsite storage repositories (eg. Rapidshare), or any other method". XDA doesn't *need* to do this in order to ensure the site does not get into legal hot water. I suspect they *might* do it, however, as some kind of misguided moral stance (and in my view the QuickOffice preoccupation was an example of just this). But in my opinion if they choose the latter then XDA is over as a site for realistic Android ROM development (and indeed, Windows Mobile and other OSes, if they apply the same standards across all their boards).
* elaborating on what I mean here - if people attach zips directly to their posts, and those zips are stored on the XDA servers, then XDA as a site is potentially liable. Alternatively, if instead people give a URL or a search string whereby people can find a ROM, but those files are not physically stored on XDA, they are not - any more than Google is liable for the many copyrighted MP3s you can find links to via their search engine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The bottom line is that if ROM devs decided they were going to respect ALL legitimate copyrights, there'd be no Hero ROMs, no Windows Mobile ROMs, in fact no ROMs apart from barebones AOSP ROMs which do less than a stock ROM.
ei8htohms said:
Mods: please remove.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I'm sorry, that's just ignorant. Just because you don't agree with a sentiment doesn't entitle you to demand the mods remove it. If the mods want to remove it they will (and in my view that would indicate which "side" they were choosing.) Personally, I don't know what it's like elsewhere around the world, but here in the UK one is at least allowed to speak freely, if not necessarily act freely.

kudos to cyanogen!

Loccy said:
If the mods want to remove it they will (and in my view that would indicate which "side" they were choosing.) Personally, I don't know what it's like elsewhere around the world, but here in the UK one is at least allowed to speak freely, if not necessarily act freely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think common U.S. practice is: if you speak freely, you get called names by people until you either cry or shoot them, thus proving to everyone that your original point is invalid.
But XDA has always had a policy of "if it doesn't get the site admins in trouble, it's probably ok." If memory serves, the site is in the Netherlands, and is subject to EU laws as to copyright, etc. I think that's important to remember when it comes to such things, since the EU laws as to intellectual property are in flux and not quite the same as those in the US or UK.
But the official policy is available in one of the toplevel forums here:
Flar said:
Hi Everybody,
We noticed that there is some confusion when it comes to posting sensitive material on xda-developers.com and mostly about what can and can't be posted.
We would like to clarify our point of view through this post.
Since the start of xda-developers this has always been a site that once in while has some sensitive material online, through the years this site has grown so big it's no longer possible to check every file on our servers or every post on the board, we also feel it wouldn't benefit the community if we did.
However with increased popularity comes an increased amount of legal complaints when sensitive material is found on our servers. Which is the reason why we have been more careful lately. Recently some sensitive material has shown up on the servers and we received legal complaints from companies who have the copyrights for this material, although we all feel this is very interesting and valuable material we cannot risk the future of xda-developers by ignoring the legal requests we receive, therefore this material has been taken offline.
We understand that maintaining the balance between legal and illegal is sometimes confusing and/or difficult but that is unfortunately how it works.
When it comes to posting sensitive material there are a couple suggestions we can make:
- if possible do not post the files on the xda-developers servers.
- use your common sense (if you feel something might not be legal it probably isn't).
- always keep in mind when posting software of any kind, that we will take it offline if there is a legal complaint from the copyright owner.
Warez is in no way accepted and will be removed upon discovery.
I hope this post will serve as a clear and valuable guideline.
Greetz,
Flar
Site admin.
P.s. When you have any questions you can always contact me or one of the moderators.
Last edited by Flar; 17th January 2007 at 10:14 AM..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Everyone has an opinion, and they have, or should have, the right to decide for themselves what is correct. I am on the side of Cyanogen. I do not think what he did caused any harm or loss of revenue to anyone. We can not always have our way though, and I think that's the case here. I don't know him, but I do think he's smart enough to keep doing what he is EXTREMELY good at without putting himself in a bad position. It's just a stumbling block to get past. We are puting a lot of effort into pointing fingers and throwing around ideas, but if we placed this much energy into finding a fuctional solution, we might get past it a whole buch faster. A good army fights the war, not the battle.

Warez is in no way accepted and will be removed upon discovery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But every single ROM on here is warez to some extent or another! Certainly (just for example, I'm not picking on anyone specific here) Drizzy doesn't own the IPR for the contents of his Hero ROMs. I'm pretty sure the WinMo ROMs aren't being posted by Microsoft. If the policy is that "warez is in no way accepted and will be removed upon discovery", they're not doing much of a job, are they - every other post is "warez", if you take a strict interpretation.
I suppose I'm saying that "warez is in the eye of the beholder". I fully endorse the attitude "if it doesn't get the site admins in trouble, it's probably ok" - but I can't help thinking that relaxed attitude has been firmed up of late for whatever reason, given the QuickOffice oddness. I'm pretty sure no-one who own the IPR for QuickOffice was ever in touch (although do correct me if I'm wrong), so why the odd fixation recently?
Bottom line: stick to the attitudes and approaches that have made this site what it is, please don't start getting over zealous when there's no reason to.

Honestly did this need another topic though? I mean I'm all for good news like this, but add it on to one of the many topics that are out there. -.- (ready for flaming)

easy now
Loccy said:
The bottom line is that if ROM devs decided they were going to respect ALL legitimate copyrights, there'd be no Hero ROMs, no Windows Mobile ROMs, in fact no ROMs apart from barebones AOSP ROMs which do less than a stock ROM.
And I'm sorry, that's just ignorant. Just because you don't agree with a sentiment doesn't entitle you to demand the mods remove it. If the mods want to remove it they will (and in my view that would indicate which "side" they were choosing.) Personally, I don't know what it's like elsewhere around the world, but here in the UK one is at least allowed to speak freely, if not necessarily act freely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, I'm not demanding anything. I politely requested that the mods remove a suggestion that clearly seeks to circumvent the policies of XDA: We won't distribute warez. The poster knew the suggestion was specifically aimed at getting around the XDA policy, otherwise there would be no reason for a P2P distribution alternative in the first place.
A key component of intellectual property and copyright laws (at least in the US) is that the holder of the copyright must act to defend the copyright to some reasonable extent (no, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what this entails exactly). Now that Google has acted to defend their copyrights in these instances, the line is clear. Google apps are paid apps (licensed to the handset manufacturers or service providers) and are not free to distribute without a license. Consequently, there shouldn't be much further debate about the fact that these are warez and are not to be distributed on or through XDA.
I'm not trying to attack anyone (the original poster, ROM devs or certainly yourself), but I am interested in XDA maintaining the high ground here and continuing to operate in a respectful and respectable manner.

Perhaps we should stay on topic?

te5ter said:
Perhaps we should stay on topic?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair point. Maybe we should take the "warez is in the eye of the beholder" debate to this thread. I do actually think it's a fascinating debate, personally. Oh, incidentally, just re-read my earlier post, and want to apologise to ei8htohms - I didn't mean to come off quite so brusque.

First, I'm very happy that there seems to be a workaround that Cyanogen feels comfortable in using.
However, I see it as a band-aid to a much larger problem. Yes, it addresses those few apps that Google specifically mentioned. But there seems to be potential future conflicts that could adversely affect this whole Android community.
What about all the other apps in there? The Camera/Camcorder/Gallery app for instance. The UI? Other HTC bits? And the biggie, the Search component? Does Google also lay claim to unified search, the widget, the particular framework involved in that?
I don't know the answer to that, I'm just asking. So much is left unanswered, I just feel this is only the beginning. For now, I guess it may be enough. But it still leaves so much up in the air.
Now the 2nd major issue: Cyanogen should be commended for taking the high road here and doing his best to adhere to Google's current request. I think we all know that there was never ever any question that no one saw this coming. It came from left field and shocked everyone beyond belief.
But will other rom devs be as diligent as Cyanogen? Will theme developers adhere to this? And with all of these added steps required to get a functioning "Google Experience", consider the flood of newbie questions this forum is about to endure. We all thought "brick" and "hardspl" questions were tedious at best ... prepare yourselves for the onslought of mass confusion. That fun has just begun.
I still believe the burden lies with Google to make this right. I'm not saying they should make their apps open source by any means. I'm just saying that there must be a way for Google to allow the inclusion of their apps (perhaps a different license or maybe some encryption trick that protects the apps from modification <I don't know, I'm not that smart>). Google needs to step up to the plate in this. They also need to save-face and stifle this PR nightmare. Android does not need this, Google does not need this, HTC does not need this, carriers do not need this, Cyanogen does not need this, and users do not need this. Growth of the entire Android project is simply too important. I see this as speed bump. They just made the bump too big and it needs to be shaved down some so everyone can get it over without damaging anything else.

this is great news indeed. can't wait to see what is to come!

annoying samsung...

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?

On "Original" Code

Hi, I submitted this complaint on originality through the XDA suggestions, however I'd like some community clarification too.
Hi, I recently started a hobby project here on XDA, which quite unabashedly forked a bunch of repos and picked a lot of commits, then worked to get it working for my device (Z5).
In all this I neither rebased nor changed the ownership.
While I did this I noticed a *LOT* of copied work which was simply rebranded and *NOT* forked.
I further was informed by the people I had forked that I was not supposed to fork their work although said work appeared to be a fork from another repo (though it wasn't actually forked, the file names matched)
I'm confused. Honestly.
Of features, it is known that there are very few original feature developers and they're great people.
The same features make their way across multiple roms, each with their own *cosmetic* changes (or sometimes by just rewriting the same thing). Each Rom then has an aggressive user and dev base to complain about people "copying" and not letting them get credit.
Is it really such a big deal?
I feel like it's probably less effort now to simply go the same route as many roms.
Upload a token "new" source on github by not forking repos but pushing local clones.
Is this what XDA endorses as original work?
If something is forked, isn't that a sign of respect? I feel appalled that, what honestly takes longer, after-all fixes are usually local and it's simple enough to do a hub create and push.
I took the effort of going, forking, cloning and re-doing my changes simply out of respect only to be told that my work is not original as I have "superficially" forked.
I know developers can't be everywhere. They can't develop for everyone.
This attitude of intolerance when the Roms are for DIFFERENT devices which they would NEVER support seems really sad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some developers are really excellent about this sort of stuff, I'd like to think that they're the ones who believe in their own work and don't see the need to attack others. (The CarbonRom devs are excellent, so are the SonyAosp and LineageOS guys)
The issues crop up from the other "original" roms. Basically patchwork quilts of commits, code and ideas *without* recognition for the REAL devs.
I'd also like to clarify that I have nothing against Rule 12
Rule 12 also allows for no selective sharing, and considering that for most commits you're not the original author I really don't get it.
It's not like I simply pulled a device tree and built it for my device; then removed all references and tried to make money off it.
I had to adapt it and there are commits you have not added yet from other repos too. They're donations not paywalls.
Please clarify the matter.
Additionally I only posted the rom here in the first place because I remember how bad it felt to be kept away from all the nicer new features just because no-one takes the time out to build for your device.
I can't see why a donation link is offensive. I ensured something which I did not originally develop or claim to develop available to users of another device... with credits to the original authors!
I just don't see where this is coming from.
A lot of work around is also from MapleAOSP as I see it.... along with DU, UBERROMS, Pure-Nexus, AOSP dev sources etc.

Personally speaking - I am not offended, because it takes wit and effort to integrate everything and get it working, and IMHO every dev in the world stands on giants' shoulders, taking advantage from the work of others, and all efforts deserve some kind of reward, be it fame, praise, recognition, ... - or money. The donors decide the way they show their appreciation...
That having said, I mostly decide to support devs by buying their Pro apps that unlock some extra features. But I also donate money at times.. Because i feel it's only fair - I can't do development, I learned a different profession that I'm well paid for. Why not share a little in appreciation for the devs' work that I take advantage off?
Just my 2¢

[Discussion] The Trouble with Android Custom ROMs

Note: I had initially posted a version of this article on one of the Xiaomi sub-forums, but was told by some that since this is a general discussion, it would find wider readership if I post it here. So, I have edited and modified the original article for a more generalized approach, and posting it here. Hopefully, some sensible discussion will ensue.
****​
If you are stuck with a phone for which the manufacturer has stopped releasing updates, or if you are bored with your current Android version and want to try something new, or if you want to be on the latest Android security patches, or if you want to make use of theming engines such as Substratum (which may not work with your phone's default OS), or if you are just a hobbyist looking for something fresh…custom android roms provide you with the perfect solution for your needs. Made by developers and enthusiasts, custom roms illustrate the power of diversity that can come from an open source ecosystem.
In theory, at least.
Below is my commentary on my trysts with custom roms over the last year and half.
Disclaimer: My experiences are based mostly on three phones - Moto G4, Redmi Note 3 (kenzo, not kate), and OnePlus 3. I have tried dozens of different ROMs in the process, with varying degrees of success and satisfaction.
The Trouble with custom Roms
1. Barriers to Entry
Before you can even venture into the world of installing and trying out new roms, you must ensure that your phone is, in fact, ready for it. This requires steps like getting the bootloader unlocked (can be tricky with phones like Xiaomi etc.), installing custom recovery, and then flashing roms, and then flashing GApps. For most users, this is much more hassle than they can be bothered with. There is a significantly steep learning curve for the layperson.
Thereafter, you must see which ROMs are available for your phone, which are still in active development, which have less bugs etc. This requires a lot of time going through the forums. Otherwise, you will waste more time flashing and then reflashing continuously.
Which brings us to the second point.
2. Official, Unofficial, MOD….Abandoned!
So, you found your way around XDA forums…good job! Now, you must start figuring out the differences between Official and Unofficial roms, and what that implies. The situation gets even more complex, because often we assume that Official tag would imply active development and bugfixes, and security updates, and the like. However, there are many "Official" roms that are dead, but "unofficial" roms that are alive, with more bugfixes, and a wider community.
One example is Citrus-CAF for Kenzo Official, which is dead…but Customized LOS build by Umang, which is unofficial, which is going well.
So after a while, the user realizes that whether there is an Official tag or Unofficial tag, really doesn't matter for all practical purposes, and is quite frankly just confusing. So why even bother with the tags? Official builds are equally likely to be abandoned by the developers without any prior notice, as are unofficial builds. Which takes us to the next issue.
3. Abandoned!
Remember, why you hopped on to the custom roms scene in the first place? That your manufacturer has abandoned your device and you wanted something new and more up to date? Well, guess what?! Custom rom developers abandon their roms all the time, without any warning whatsoever, and you are stuck waiting for the next build, which never comes.
This is hidden under the courteous pretenses of asinine etiquettes such as… "Don't ask for ETAs..the developers have a life you know, they are doing this for free, so just wait."
Here is my gripe with this all-pervasive norm. The developers knew they have a life, and yet decided to commit to a project, and attracted other people to their roms. And people put their trust in the developer (phones have all our data, so allowing a random person's code willingly on our phones is an act of utmost good faith), reported bugs, went through the trouble of the learning curve. Some even donated to the projects. If you start a pet project in your backyard, which no one else is affected by, then by all means go ahead and abandon it whenever you like. But when you are making OSes, then have some accountability. Especially the Official tag ones.
So many developers are just computer science students who have exams and what not, and so although the title of the ROM thread might claim weekly updates, they are gone for a month (Eg. Resurrection Remix for Redmi Note 3). This gives the whole rom an amateurish feel, and often a user might decide to stick with the OEM because of a lack of confidence in such roms.
And what is so wrong with asking for ETAs? It requires the developer to make a commitment which they may not be in a position to honor. That's the problem. Which leads me to the next point.
4. Communication
There are some developers who are really good at communication and keeping their user base updated on what's happening behind the scenes. However, this is still a rarity. I wish more developers did that. Some start new threads, promise you the best experience there ever was in the history of humanity, stay online for a month, and then vanish without a trace…(Eg. dotOS).
I wish there were more developers like xyyx, and Franco who communicate, even when they are not uploading builds. It instills confidence.
5. Accountability
I recently directed a friend of mine to go to one of the many rom threads available for his phone, the OnePlus 5. He spent one night browsing the forums, and decided he did not want to install anything. I asked why, and he said, "All this is fine, but I cannot get past, the initial disclaimer itself. When a manufacturer messes up an update and bricks your phone, they are held accountable. It is their legal responsibility. But here, every single rom starts with … you are on your own, if I release an update which breaks your phone, then too bad, go cry somewhere else. I cannot abide by that."
And this got me thinking…for those of us, who are not so tech savvy, custom roms are indeed a scary proposition. Can we do something about it, to ensure a little bit more accountability and quality checks for Official roms at least?
6. Userbase/ Community
While the general populace here at XDA is extremely helpful, I have found that this forum is divided into sub-communities of varying degrees of niceness. The stark difference can be found in the sub-communities of Oneplus 3 custom rom versus that of Redmi Note 3. While the former group seems more mature and accepting of mistakes newcomers might make, that of the latter, is less forgiving.
Please take a look at the below just some of the thousands of examples of such conversations live on the forums.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Once you are done wondering about the relevance of an inquiry on your sexual orientation by a homophobic imbecile, on a custom rom forum, you find yourself guided by experts like this...
But the most common, useful advice of them all, repeated many times on custom rom forums is this....
Now I know the moderators clean the threads at regular intervals, but think from the perspective of that new user, a potential fellow enthusiast, who perhaps could have ventured into the custom rom scene and helped in various ways…think from that person's point of view….would they ever return to that rom? Every three pages of any rom, you will find such comments.
And this is a huge problem, I feel. Custom roms thrive on the community around them, much like Linux distributions. Developers and moderators must take more steps to ensure a more harmonious and cordial interaction on their forums.
Conclusion
Here are my takeaways from this journey so far
Installing custom roms is difficult, and a pain. With locked bootloaders, custom recoveries, Error 7, etc etc. There is very little a developer can do about this.
Currently, there seems to be no difference between Official and Unofficial roms from a user's perspective, so the tags are meaningless and confusing. That Official tag will start to mean something, only if there are more stringent conditions on quality, accountability, communication, and expectation of support and development. Otherwise, it is useless.
The community needs to be better moderated than it is, currently. Trolls are a fact of modern life, I know. But perhaps, we as a community can also moderate and shut down any such conversations, and help each other, better than we are doing.
Overall, I think, rather than depending solely on the developers and maintainers of a custom rom, I think it is upon us, the community, as a whole to make this ecosystem better for users and developers, enthusiasts and hobbyists, geeks and layperson, alike.

Some very valid points. But at the Accountability part, I think developers are justified for the disclaimer.
Sent from my HUAWEI BLN-L24 using XDA Labs

I get the feeling that you want the entire community to evolve and that is a very good thing. You have raised very important points, but here are their flaws, in your own order:
1) There's pretty much nothing that can be done about that. Anything aftermarket, whether it's software, hardware, automobile parts etc, require a fair deal of research on the end of the user. That said, things have become much easier now that what it was 4 years ago (from my experience), which is surprisingly good, but was never expected. Even if the entire process could theoretically made simpler, that would just bring a huge crowd of inexperienced users who have not done research into the userbase. These users will not be able to deal with the many annoyances that come with using custom firmware.
2) Official builds by reputed ROMs are usually never abandoned, because they are built on a server, on a regular basis. Even if the maintainer stops updating the device tree, the device can still get updates with ROM level changes. However, since there are an insane number of ROMs with different names, there are ones that have official builds manually built by a human, which results in infrequent builds. XDA *could* think of enforcing certain standards to get the OFFICIAL tag, like a minimum of monthly updates.
3/4/5) This is where I almost completely disagree with you. Let me start off by saying that I do agree with you on the fact that good communication is important, and that is something that most developers (including me) can improve on.
That said, here's the problem, and I can only speak for myself here. When you're using custom firmware, you gain something, and you lose something. The rise in number of ROMs and supported devices has made people compare custom ROMs to OEM releases. You pay the OEMs for not only your hardware, but also for the software. They have access to proprietary code that makes their jobs so much easier. Custom ROMs, especially bring ups from scratch, require a LOT of time and effort. For example, I have a relatively high powerful laptop (Alienware 15 with i7-6820HK and 16GB RAM) and it takes me ~6hrs to build an oreo based ROM from scratch. While there are developers with access to better servers and equipment, a majority do not. Considering this build time, imagine how much time and effort it takes to debug each small change. Changes in life are not usually predictable, and I may start a project with a particular timeline in mind, and something may come up that makes me unable to meet that. Developers are not trying to "attract users" with their ROMs. They are sharing their work, which they made in their free time and making them accountable is very unfair. What you can do is follow a thread, see the frequency of updates and decide whether you want to use it or not. Also, most ROM releases (not sure about poor communities like Xiaomi and stuff) are usable independently, even without updates.
Custom ROM flashing methods are much riskier and more complicated than an OEM's process. 99% of all ROM releases are tested by the developer and works on their end. Imagine making a non-paid developer responsible for something that's most probably a user error. Even with official builds, the process remains the same. So no, accountability will never be a thing. The point of the disclaimer to keep those in doubt (these are the same people who are likely to screw up) away.

You seem to forget this is a hobby.
Official just means it has passed the official teams guidelines. Made by a member of the team.
Unofficial means some random guy just used the source he found.
Rom devs tend to only develop for devices they own. Even xda frowns on building for a device you don't have.
Again this is a hobby. No commitment needed.
Let's not get into Franco. There is a reason he is in xda all the time. I'll leave it at that. Never heard of the other guy.
Yes there is a learning curve. Because bad things can happen.
Custom roms are not for those weak of heart or mind. So they are not for everyone, nor should everyone attempt it.
Most devs are not forgiving. As all the info is there. Nothing anyone asks is new. It's all been asked before and answered before. So when people mess up because they were lazy, most have no time or energy for it.
You have to remember that you came to a developers site. Not a social site, not a place to make friends. Developers tend to be anti social with no tolerance for stupidity. Mind you they have eased up over the years but it's still there.
It's all a matter of respect. Users don't respect the work devs do enough to put in the needed work to make things work. Then devs have zero time for them.
Also no most are not students. (maybe for those devices sue to their markets) most devs are family men and women. They only get a few hours a week sometime to work on your hobby. (all part of being an adult)