Related
As you all know we all love having our custom roms on our HTC devices, it makes them much faster and has many more applications and content!
But the truth is, is all this legal?
I wanted to hear it out straight from the horses mouth so i went straight to the big guys, Google INCs Android.
Dissapointingly on their website thye have no Contact Us or e-mail so i just browsed about.
What i found out?
I found out that Android is a free, open source Os so any one can come in, get an SDK and develop some apps.
What i didn't find out?
What i did not find out is it flashing or creating roms is legal.
So i went up to the guys who gave Android a try, HTC!
I asked them exactly this:
Is flashing custom Android roms legal on the HTC Hero/HTC Android phones?
This is because Android is a free open soruce fully customisable mobile platfrm created by google INC.
Thank you
They said:, well Terry from HTC said:
Dear Blazr Thank you for your enquiry about Android devices This is how we keep these devices up to date and current. What happens is that google inc release these Roms to us and we make HTC Rom updates from them, so they are 100% legal. If these steps have not helped, please let me know by responding using the link provided and I will be happy to check again for you. Best regards, Terry Snelling HTC customer support team HTC Corp. Global Service Division http://www.htc.com/europe/CA_Hotline.aspx
Then i asked my question again:
No i am asking if flashing UNOFFICAL CUSTOM MADE ROMS are legal, not flashinggoogles, please can you reply
And they said this:
Dear Blazr Thank you for your enquiry about Rom updates If you dont update to rom from www.HTC.com, or your providers website, then this will be a illegal rom and will lose your warranty. If these steps have not helped, please let me know by responding using the link provided and I will be happy to check again for you. Best regards, Terry Snelling HTC customer support team HTC Corp. Global Service Division http://www.htc.com/europe/CA_Hotline.aspx
Well i aint sure if this helped but there you go,
They said that
1 Flashing a rom not from HTC or Google is ILLEGAL
2 And that it will ruin your warranty
So if youre someone who doesn't care but wants the best from his device, like me, then continue supporting custom rom makers.
But if you are someone, like my aint, who LOVES their warranty and hates hacking and 'this nonsense,' they say. Then stick with Android 2.0.
But What do you think,
Thats what i would like to know!
Please respond and give your opiion,
Regards
Sorry if this is long
This is nothing new, we know this for already years. They (MS, HTC, etc.) tolerate it.
Many will argue that as you have paid for the device it is up to you what you do with the device..
I very much doubt flashing a non-official ROM is illegal.. I know of no law that it breaks..
Meekel said:
Many will argue that as you have paid for the device it is up to you what you do with the device..
I very much doubt flashing a non-official ROM is illegal.. I know of no law that it breaks..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the only thing it "breaks" is your warranty.
djn541 said:
I think the only thing it "breaks" is your warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct.. in addition, the email said an "illegal rom" not that it was illegal to flash a rom
Meekel said:
Correct.. in addition, the email said an "illegal rom" not that it was illegal to flash a rom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. In the e-mail and "illegal rom" is a rom that does not originat from google itself, HTC (or other manufacturer), or your carrier. illegal roms, "cooked Roms" are only illegal in the sense that you will void your warranty. Not that you will go to prison.
lol, of course flashing an unoffical Windows Mobile ROM is illegal! From a legal standpoint, cooked ROMs are an intellectual property nightmare! That's why XDA has to remove links to ROM builds when they get a cease and desist letter. Otherwise, they'd go to court and lose the case because M$ is clearly within its rights to request the ROMs be taken down. Now, are you going to be imprisoned because you use a cooked ROM? Of course not. M$ is smart enough to know when not to alienate its best customers. HTC and M$ could take most of the software off this board in an instant due to all that software existing in a copyright gray area which favors them. However, they know when they should respect their enthusiast community and there's a defacto understanding between the device enthusiasts and them.
For Android, the situation's actually a bit different. Most of Android is open source, and licensed under an Apache 2 or a GPL v2 license. Flashing ROMs containing only the open source parts are completely legal (though warranty voiding because they're not from the OEM). However, Google includes some of their own closed source applications like YouTube, GMail, Google Maps, etc. in Android OS, and these cannot be redistributed as they are proprietary to Google. This ensures that only manufactures they approve can make Android devices with full functionality. The classic example of this is when Android ROM cook Cyanogen recieved a C&D letter from Google, because his custom firmware contained these applications and he was not within his legal rights to redistribute them with his ROMs. So, it can get a bit tricky with Android, but the short answer is yes, it's technically illegal to flash full cooked ROMS (i.e. with Google proprietary apps).
However, you shouldn't worry about the police taking you away or finding yourself with a lawsuit just because you flash a cooked ROM. The corporations usually don't mess with their enthusiast community, and usually the worst they do is have the offending software taken down. However, you should keep in mind that the corporations are almost always, in these cases, within their rights to issue a law suit or similar (though they always go for the big-time chefs and not the users, to make a point).
DaveTheTytnIIGuy said:
lol, of course flashing an unoffical Windows Mobile ROM is illegal! From a legal standpoint, cooked ROMs are an intellectual property nightmare! That's why XDA has to remove links to ROM builds when they get a cease and desist letter. Otherwise, they'd go to court and lose the case because M$ is clearly within its rights to request the ROMs be taken down. Now, are you going to be imprisoned because you use a cooked ROM? Of course not. M$ is smart enough to know when not to alienate its best customers. HTC and M$ could take most of the software off this board in an instant due to all that software existing in a copyright gray area which favors them. However, they know when they should respect their enthusiast community and there's a defacto understanding between the device enthusiasts and them.
For Android, the situation's actually a bit different. Most of Android is open source, and licensed under an Apache 2 or a GPL v2 license. Flashing ROMs containing only the open source parts are completely legal (though warranty voiding because they're not from the OEM). However, Google includes some of their own closed source applications like YouTube, GMail, Google Maps, etc. in Android OS, and these cannot be redistributed as they are proprietary to Google. This ensures that only manufactures they approve can make Android devices with full functionality. The classic example of this is when Android ROM cook Cyanogen recieved a C&D letter from Google, because his custom firmware contained these applications and he was not within his legal rights to redistribute them with his ROMs. So, it can get a bit tricky with Android, but the short answer is yes, it's technically illegal to flash full cooked ROMS (i.e. with Google proprietary apps).
However, you shouldn't worry about the police taking you away or finding yourself with a lawsuit just because you flash a cooked ROM. The corporations usually don't mess with their enthusiast community, and usually the worst they do is have the offending software taken down. However, you should keep in mind that the corporations are almost always, in these cases, within their rights to issue a law suit or similar (though they always go for the big-time chefs and not the users, to make a point).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said. Kudos to you
DaveTheTytnIIGuy said:
lol, of course flashing an unoffical Windows Mobile ROM is illegal! From a legal standpoint, cooked ROMs are an intellectual property nightmare! That's why XDA has to remove links to ROM builds when they get a cease and desist letter. Otherwise, they'd go to court and lose the case because M$ is clearly within its rights to request the ROMs be taken down. Now, are you going to be imprisoned because you use a cooked ROM? Of course not. M$ is smart enough to know when not to alienate its best customers. HTC and M$ could take most of the software off this board in an instant due to all that software existing in a copyright gray area which favors them. However, they know when they should respect their enthusiast community and there's a defacto understanding between the device enthusiasts and them.
For Android, the situation's actually a bit different. Most of Android is open source, and licensed under an Apache 2 or a GPL v2 license. Flashing ROMs containing only the open source parts are completely legal (though warranty voiding because they're not from the OEM). However, Google includes some of their own closed source applications like YouTube, GMail, Google Maps, etc. in Android OS, and these cannot be redistributed as they are proprietary to Google. This ensures that only manufactures they approve can make Android devices with full functionality. The classic example of this is when Android ROM cook Cyanogen recieved a C&D letter from Google, because his custom firmware contained these applications and he was not within his legal rights to redistribute them with his ROMs. So, it can get a bit tricky with Android, but the short answer is yes, it's technically illegal to flash full cooked ROMS (i.e. with Google proprietary apps).
However, you shouldn't worry about the police taking you away or finding yourself with a lawsuit just because you flash a cooked ROM. The corporations usually don't mess with their enthusiast community, and usually the worst they do is have the offending software taken down. However, you should keep in mind that the corporations are almost always, in these cases, within their rights to issue a law suit or similar (though they always go for the big-time chefs and not the users, to make a point).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said man, well said. They wouldn't track you down cause you flashed a rom but if some how, what are the likes of this but, a clever police man checked out your phone then we may be introuble. But thats what i a saying cause Modacos rom has google applications in it i think..
Non the less, what they have said is that it is illegal to post custom roms with their applications in it, so its sort of legal to flash your own rom without the need of googles stuff.
djn541 said:
I think the only thing it "breaks" is your warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, if the thing breaks from manufactors defects then i cant return it and have tp pay to get it fixed otherwise i must say hello to insurance, which i aint sure how much it is on the Hero.
Meekel said:
Many will argue that as you have paid for the device it is up to you what you do with the device..
I very much doubt flashing a non-official ROM is illegal.. I know of no law that it breaks..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it just breaks the manufactors agreement but they say its illegal, its like putting CFW on a PSP or Wii.??
Also if you piad 400 of your great british pounds or american bucks then you should be able to do what you like to it, when you like to it, (except be a stupid p!rate)..
blazr said:
True, it just breaks the manufactors agreement but they say its illegal, its like putting CFW on a PSP or Wii.??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disgaree with this statement purely on the fact that in the UK no one has been prosecuted for chipping/modding a games console.
They have only be prosecuted for selling these devices..
I understand your point though..
Meekel said:
I disgaree with this statement purely on the fact that in the UK no one has been prosecuted for chipping/modding a games console.
They have only be prosecuted for selling these devices..
I understand your point though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe not, but I'm fairly sure UK law states that "circumventing protection" is a crime. Flashing a ROM isn't illegal, but HSPL/SSPL is as you're circumventing the protection which prevents you from flashing.
Distributing ROMs is also illegal as you are making/distributing copies of someone else's source code.
So I think that as long as you don't use HSPL/SSPL and don't distribute your ROMs it wouldn't be illegal. But then again, I'm no solicitor (lawyer for you yanks )
Blade0rz said:
Maybe not, but I'm fairly sure UK law states that "circumventing protection" is a crime. Flashing a ROM isn't illegal, but HSPL/SSPL is as you're circumventing the protection which prevents you from flashing.
Distributing ROMs is also illegal as you are making/distributing copies of someone else's source code.
So I think that as long as you don't use HSPL/SSPL and don't distribute your ROMs it wouldn't be illegal. But then again, I'm no solicitor (lawyer for you yanks )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that distributing ROMs is illegal as you would be using IP from whatever company it is therefore would be breaking the law..
Ack, it's a complicated issue ain't it..?
Your very right. Its a very complicated issue as it falls under many categories. And the fact that laws are very different in different countries. This issue can be compared with lots of cases.
I will try to resume it this way:
1) When you purchase an electronic device containing software, you own the hardware, but only are licensing the usage of the provided software. This means you cannot do whatever you want with the device, i.e. you may not reverse engineer the software (at least in most western countries).
2) Flashing offical ROM's, which are provided by the manufacturer to be used by customers are not illegal, or it would be the manufacturer's responsability if he did not license the software for distribution. If the customer bricks the device while flashing it, he way lose warranty.
3) Flashing unofficial ROM's: the legal aspect of it is not concerning the act of flashing, but the question if you are entitled to a valid license of all included software modules. In most cases you are not. Even if you are entitled to the software modules contained in the unoffical ROM, flashing it to the device definitly voids the warranty. The question is: can the manufacturer prove you used an unofficial ROM. In most cases he can't, specially if you flash back to an offical ROM prior to sending the faulty device in.
4) In practical terms: as long as you download the unoffical ROM without spreading it yourself (aka using a P2P client) and as long as you don't offer the unoffical ROM yourself, it is very unlikely that you risk any legal trouble. The reason being that the offense has a very small value compared to the difficulty to actually prove anything. No policeman has the knowledge and authority to check the firmware of your phone...
However, in case of malfunction, the manufacturer can always refuse warranty if he can prove that an unoffical ROM has been flashed to the device. Again, often manufacturers like HTC seem to be pretty customer-friendly. I have a Blue Angel that broke within warranty after I flashed a custom ROM (was conincidence and not the ROM's fault). I got a free repair, but the device was returned with the latest official HTC ROM. Fair enough.
5) What you should be carefull about: take care not to publish (or at least in a traceable way) unofficial firmware containing third party software which has not been licensed, i.e. using a cracked version.
6) Final thoughts: As has been stated here already, I believe that a forum like this one is probably monitored by people from Microsoft and HTC (both companies being the reason for this forum to exist in first place). Because it has been pretty clean and basically providing corrected ROM's to entusiasts, no real harm is done to either company and perhaps even quite the opposite: any problem you experience on an HTC phone, search for a resultion in Google and you end up here. I think this is the best support forum any company could desire, so why make a war against it...
Cheers,
vma
Well said vma
Deffinition of illegal,
1. not according to or authorized by law
2. not sanctioned by official rules
I think in the context we're discussing here #1 does NOT apply, but #2 does.
I don't think any law has been written that makes it a crime to flash a custom ROM to your phone. However according to some "official" rules it is illegal. But when you commit an illegal act that is a violation of rules, it is not punishible by law. No, the punishment is handed down by the manufacturer and that is the voiding of your warranty.
It's hard to commit a truly illegal crime against yourself. Can you steal from yourself? Can you hit yourself in the head and be prosecuted for assault? The only one I can think of is suicide. But have you ever seen the crime of suicide prosecuted? (I'm not talking about assisted suicide here)
Interesting discussion, and just my 2 cents,
@dirkbonn:
Your line of thinking is wrong. I am by no means a lawyer or what so ever, BUT: the flashing of cooked ROM's is illegal because:
1) It required REVERSE ENGINEERING of software to be done. Defined in most countries as illegal.
2) It involves the use of unlicensed software. Defined in most countries as illegal.
3) It involves in many cases the removal of locks imposed by the operator. Again, this is illegal, because you accepted a contract in which you commited to refrain from doing that.
What some people don't seem to understand is: when you purchase the device, it comes with software which you only license for use. You do not own the software. Also, you are only granted to use the provided versions. You cannot assume that you have the right to use a more recent version or a version in another language. The right to decide upon that, belongs to the owner of the intellectual property of the software.
Again, debating about the logic of such laws will not change the law.
To change the law, you need to vote for the right politicians and pressure them to approve laws, you are comfortable with.
In my modest opinion, laws regarding the protection of intellectual property have to quickly be revised, in order to avoid having the whole population commiting offenses and crimes.
Cheers,
vma
Request to HTC
hello everybody. recently I asked HTC about this issue.
Question:
"Dear Sirs and Madams
I wanted to ask you if updating a HTC Touch HD from WM 6.1 to WM 6.5 with a downloaded ROM not from the HTC or Microsoft-Website is illegal or not. For me it is clear that if I do so, I lose my warranty on it, but am I allowed to do so?"
Answer:
"Thank you for contacting us. Installing non official ROM on your devcie will void your warranty . It may also cause problems in funcionality on your device. It is up to you to decide to install any ROM on your device. I trust that this resolves your query, please do not hesitate to contact us again if required."
best regards,
sblubb
Definatly not illegal. Will void your warranty BUT most of the things you get in your warranty are covered by your statutory rights, which you still have.
As an employee of Vodafone UK. I can confirm from a network operators POV, we do NOT refuse warranty exchanges on an Android device that has been rooted or custom ROM'ed as long as the fault is a hardware fault.
This is because Android is open source and it is illegal to try and charge or restrict it.
Windows devices however, we will not do anything if they are not running the stock image. That is because Windows is licensed software that the manufacturers have to pay to use.
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.
People are constantly modifying stock ROMs, taking drivers from leaked builds, putting apps in their ROMs, ect... And it makes me wonder, is any of this technically illegal? Maybe not "directly" illegal, I'm thinking "indirectly" illegal. For example, the way installing OS X on a hackintosh is illegal cuz you violate some of Apple's rules or whatever. Get what I mean? Are we breaking the rules and violating a ton of companies' work?
Is there anything wrong with all the ROMing and rooting that goes on with Android?
Edit: Oops, this thread is probably in the wrong place. Sorry. It might belong in "General" or something
Well,I think that flashing roms by itself isn't illegal,as Android is open-source.Messing with locked bootloaders could be considered illegal,and as punishment we are deprived of our warranties.I also think that porting close-source stuff(UIs etc like Sense) that are the property of companies is also illegal,but they do have a way to protect that stuff well enough...
tolis626 said:
Well,I think that flashing roms by itself isn't illegal,as Android is open-source.Messing with locked bootloaders could be considered illegal,and as punishment we are deprived of our warranties.I also think that porting close-source stuff(UIs etc like Sense) that are the property of companies is also illegal,but they do have a way to protect that stuff well enough...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm. That sucks. Basically every ROM out there is probably using something illegally taken out of some stock or leaked ROM or whatever. Doesn't it seem that way?
Yumunum said:
Hmm. That sucks. Basically every ROM out there is probably using something illegally taken out of some stock or leaked ROM or whatever. Doesn't it seem that way?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, not really. I think that the whole android system is based on open source (AOSP), including "stock" roms.
There are tons of roms developed directly from google's aosp source, taking nothing illegally- on the opposite- contributing to the project...
You can google or look in wikipedia for more info about android open source project.
Why, do you see any problem?
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk
Im calling the Police!!!! Your Going Down Town to Google Jail!
mattfox27 said:
Im calling the Police!!!! Your Going Down Town to Google Jail!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, my concern isn't anything like that. I'm not afraid of getting "caught" or whatever. It's morals. And that's a whole different discussion, I'm not going to get into it ;P
Stuff that is used in custom roms that comes from paid work is ILLEGAL in any way.
Drivers as sample:
- a lot of guys working in company's where the code is done by paid work - used in custom roms is illegal because the small letters from the law
- how to get these cooks by the law. It is hard but the evidence is sampled every day, believe me.
- every cook who is using leaked or stock stuff without the permission from the owner is illegal. Oh s**t XDA has to close a lot of threads very fast, because it is illegal .
Sense is the next sample:
ok HTC is doing nothing at the moment, because they have a profit on that. But in nature it is illegal in any way
Also the Samsung leaked stuff:
Samsung has a lot of profit in that way, but wait for the day when they are bigger or equal as Apple, they will go against that.
Apple:
is the best sample. Ok Apple's politics is s**t in my eyes, but they have the right on his site. Every jail break as sample is illegal in any way.
At the end, i had asked my lawyer about all this leaked and stock stuff, modding and cookking (not a local small one, a big player in our world company). He shows me some facts and normally we all use illegal stuff in the eys of the law. And a normaly good froum, so as XDA, can't change anything on that.
mike2nl said:
Stuff that is used in custom roms that comes from paid work is ILLEGAL in any way.
Apple:
is the best sample. Ok Apple's politics is s**t in my eyes, but they have the right on his site. Every jail break as sample is illegal in any way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not in usa jailbreaking is legal,downloading paid apps for free,that's another story
Illegal or not once you buy the phone its up to you how you use it
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
If you buy a phone, it is now yours and you can do everything with it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
Jay794 said:
Illegal or not once you buy the phone its up to you how you use it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dennisalex said:
If you buy a phone, it is now yours and you can do everything with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When you buy a phone then you are right, but what is with the millions of people who has a contract with her provider and a locked phone, or a phone gift or a phone with the quarter of the price....
Then it is illegal, because you don't are the owner of that phone. You have to pay for it with the contract. At the end of that contract the phone is yours not earlier.
The same thing is when you buy a second hand phone with all this stuff, it is illegal and you have to format it (in simple word *lol).
@xxmarkosxx:
that was new for me that amercia has given it free and that by the power of Apple. I will ask the american lawyer of our company and will come back for that. In two weeks i am there and then i will ask.
The most active illegal activity in custom roms is people porting closed-source vendor apparently like Sony Walkman or HTC Keyboard to other brands. Any kind of reverse engineering on these closed source files is a breach of license.
Sent from Xperia Play (R800a) with Tapatalk
Sorry to say, not all the time. Because i know what i have written and what is payed and what not. But in some cases you are right Dan.
In some images i have added special code to see back my work. So some things can be illegal
mike2nl said:
Sorry to say, not all the time. Because i know what i have written and what is payed and what not. But in some cases you are right Dan.
In some images i have added special code to see back my work. So some things can be illegal
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no such thing as owning software unless you created it yourself from scratch. Even if it's free/free (libre, as in free beer) open source, you don't own the software. You still have to follow the laws of the license. And even if you did create the software yourself, you are still bound my the license agreement of whatever IDE('s)/SDK('s) you used to write it. (E.g. it is illegal to sell software, or use software in a commercial environment, if it was created in Microsoft Visual Studio Express).
This goes the same for apps that are not open source, e.g. Xperia S Launcher or HTC Keyboard, and many apps on the Play Store. When you bought the app/device, you do not own the software, but you are legally permitted to use the software as defined in the license agreement. 95% of closed-source license agreements deny the permission to reverse engineer these files, so as soon as you use APKTool on an APK that is not open-source, you've breached copyright law.
With that said, most OEM's don't seem to care too much about XDA and various other website developments about porting proprietary vendor packages to other devices. They just don't have time or resources to chase these people down and try to sue them (I mean, they're not Apple heh) - it'd cost more money than they'd feasibly get. OTOH, some developers, such as Xiaomi (MIUI ROM creators from China), actually congratulate and share public releases of their closed-source packages being ported to non-MIUI devices and ROM's.
If you do your research, there is no argument to stand against it being illegal - it's a fact. But that's not to say it's wrong, and not to say the OEM's are too bothered about it. After all, they get a bit of publicity about it (some time ago, I switched from a HTC to a Sony device because I was much more impressed with Xperia's UI and stock apps which I used on a hacked HTC device).
Regarding bootloader/unlocking/rooting, not all manufacturers demonize it. Sony provide an official means to do it - as long as the provider has not blocked bootloader unlocking (which then requires specialized service - as said, this is usually in the case of a plan because you don't actually own the phone yet).
With that said, I will answer the original question -
It is not illegal to install a custom ROM on your phone if you own the phone. However, there are two points to consider - firstly, do you actually own the phone or does your carrier? Secondly, if it includes Google Apps, it is illegal. CyanogenMod project had to remove Google Apps from their ROM's some time ago because of a license breach (the OEM's have to pay Google to release a phone with Google Apps preinstalled).
So the only 100% legal ROM is Cyanogenmod without Google Apps, or your own AOSP compilation without Google Apps. So obviously, Google and the OEM's don't care too much about custom ROM's - because techically, 90% of them have actually broken the law somewhere. It's just not worth their time to enforce these laws, especially since these devices we buy usually have Google Apps pre-loaded already (so it's a legal grey area really, they can't prove anything in the end).
Short info..i don't write any software for XDA. I am from a company who pays for work.
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?
Have any of you really thought about the current Android root access situation?
Android, an operating system developed by Google, based on the work of Linus Torvalds et.al., distributed under GPL1,2 or 3 which supposedly protects it from being "owned" by any commercial organization and requires the source code for any modifications to be made available to the end user is currently owned by the commercial interests of the various phone carriers both here and in other countries. The very fact that we have to "hack" root access to a phone we purchased, based on a GPL operating system is, from my understanding, illegal. By locking the bootloader refusing to release sources and preventing the end user from altering an OS kernel they themselves don't own they have effectively ignored not only the legal purpose for the various GPL's but the entire spirit of Linux and it's open-source concept. They, meaning the various hardware MFG's, in conjunction/association with the various phone carriers, download free software written by Linus and other volunteer developers, edit it, compile it, add their own flavors to it then blatantly lock access to it by refusing to allow the end user to do the very thing Linux was interned to do, be modified to suit our whims. By not making the entire source code for the kernel and other FREE system utilities freely available aren't they violating the GPL?
Am I the only one who thinks Verizon, Motorola, AT&T, Samsung, HTC even Cricket and the others are just asking for a lawsuit? Isn't the very reason Google chose Linux upon which to base it's various and sundry data devices because it is open source?
The only possible reason they could have for preventing the development community from gaining operating system root access is so they can maintain a hand on your wallet. By writing apps that require you to pay double fees to use the same data connection you've already paid for such as "tether" is more than just dishonest, It's illegal. Not even the government is that dishonest.
comments?
UPDATED:
I stand corrected, the google source tree for the current kernel source is available from google. I haven't seen MFG specific source but I've been told it does exist and can be downloaded.
You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.
Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them. Nonetheless, there is no obvious GPL violation ongoing by any of the manufacturers you mentioned. Any GPL based code much be released as open source. And it is. All the major manufacturers have sections on their sites where you can download source of kernels etc. Proprietary code (e.g. Sense, TouchWiz etc.) can't be downloaded, but these aren't based on GPL code obviously. [If they were, the companies would be legally obligated to release source code].
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used. It doesn't have anything to do with security measures in place on the device on which code is run. Manufacturers are perfectly within their rights to prevent rooting or unlocking bootlaoders to the best of their ability (although most manufacturers want to offer bootloader unlocking facilities, and it is actually the carriers who object; that sort of low level access gives a greater chance of sim unlocking I guess?).
SifJar said:
Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whow, you almost sound hostile.
I mentioned Verizon, Cricket AT&T in the second paragraph. And I agree that it's the carriers that don't want an unlocked bootloader. It's a potential profit center for them.
As for the MFG being within their rights to lock access to a device they have sold to me, I disagree. What good is the source tree if I can't compile and install it? As the owner of a device that runs GPL based code they have nothing proprietary to protect by locking the bootloader, or any other part of the device. The eFuse technology wasn't devised or intended specifically to prevent the owner from running whatever they want on the device. It's intent is to protect the device, a network available device, from unwanted tampering, not to prevent the owner from using the device as he or she sees fit. And if the owner is provided the tools it's not an obstacle to it's use. But I feel the carriers and MFG's as well in their lust for those few extra dollars have gone too far.
As for the kernel source being available, I wasn't aware they were. I stand corrected. Still, locking a device to prevent the owner from using it to share his or her internet connection, a connection they have already paid for, is certainly dishonest and possibly illegal. In government parlance it's called "double taxation". It also makes no sense at all. The market contains apps that will share the 4G connection without the carriers proprietary $30 a month product. So, what are they protecting?
kmdub said:
You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you be more specific?
Perhaps it's interpretation?
When the GPL was originally written there weren't any device locks. It was a safe assumption that if you could compile the source you could execute it on your device. Things have changed a bit since then. What value is a source tree if I can't install and run it on the device it's intended to run on? At this point the source is simply a placation to satisfy the "law". What happened to honesty in the market place? What happened to integrity in business?
SifJar said:
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Locking is probably because if
"You want higher android version? Buy our new phones!"
Sent from my Ainol Novo7 Elf using xda premium
What you are asking for - that the carriers/manufacturers ship the phone unlocked so you can e.g. put your own build of the OS onto YOUR phone - makes perfect, reasonable sense.
However, the GPL doesn't cover that, and the carriers are most certainly not reasonable or sensible.
On the positive side, you do have an option: Nexus.
siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL doesn't state that the user must be able to use code compiled by themselves, just that the code has to be available so they could compile it themselves. Like it or not, this has nothing to do with GPL I'm afraid.
The carriers want their customers to use the devices buying their services, and don't want to be spending lots on supporting "modified" devices that break. At the end of the day it comes down the the $$$.
If you spend enough with them and don't cost them lots in support calls and device repairs, then I don't think they care really. But they need to set a barrier to prevent any git from accidentally bricking their phone. If you've got the balls and skills to root your phone then one can assume that your also prepared to take responsibility for the action to do that. If you want warranty repair, you need to atleast satisfy the repair agent that it's a fault with the device not the result of rooting and modding their phone and bricking it or damaging it as a result.
With regards to the GPL, I don't think the vendors or carriers are trying to end run it, and from what I've seen and read they are mostly working hard to comply with GPL terms.
If you've got clear evidence of GPL violations, then take that to the copyright holders of the infringed software and let them decide what to do about it. Only they have the right to claim remedies for violations of the license terms.
---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------
The carriers are only interested in making money, and damn the consequences. Customer services is about keeping the customer using their services not keeping the customer happy.
Just be glad for an emimently hackable device running floss, and a SDK that allows easy development of apps to run on it as well. It's better then we've ever had.
Linux and open source software running on a phone - a few years ago people laughed at the idea. Now their buying and enjoying them even if only for the carriers intended purpose.
Linux pervades our lives. I dare say there are more linux kernels running then any other at this point in time.