Database Info

HTC Linux kernel source code request (2.1 update)

Since HTC has not yet provided the source code for the updated kernel (2.6.29-bc0d2cff) that ships with the 2.1 update, I'm putting up this thread to document my requests that they provide it. Once again, they're giving me the run-around.
Request 10USCW22ENA001190
Per the terms of the HTC Legal Agreement on my HTC CDMA (Sprint) Hero, Section 4 (End User License Agreement), I am formally requesting the source code for the Linux kernel 2.6.29 as installed on my phone. I have installed the recent Android 2.1 upgrade, and it does not appear that HTC has published the required source code yet.
As the Linux kernel is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), anyone distributing this software must also provide the source code used to compile the software. Any delay in doing so is a violation of copyright.
The specific version of the software being distributed in the HTC Hero (Sprint) Android 2.1 update is as follows:
Kernel version:
2.6.29-bc0d2cff
[email protected] #1
Thank you for taking the time to post this source code, and making sure that HTC is fulfilling its open-source (and copyright law) obligations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

First reply from Philip (North America Support (Tech))
Hello Chris, Thank you for taking the time to write us. I understand that you need the source code for the 2.1 version of the Sprint Hero. Rather than getting into a semantics debate of the device being under the Apache License or the GPL, I will just state the facts as they are. The department that you are in contact with is HTC Technical Support; we do not have any part of posting the source code, nor do we have information as to when it will be posted. However, when the source code is available you will be able to find it at developer.htc.com. Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us again. You can find additional support at support forums at community.htc.com. There is also a customer satisfaction survey for you to take if you are interested. Philip HTC Technical Support www.htc.com www.twitter.com/htc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and my response:
There is NO issue of "semantics" regarding the licensing and source code request I made. The Android platform is licensed under the Apache Software License, while the Linux kernel that the phone runs on is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). I made a very specific request for the Linux kernel source code, which is unarguably licensed via the GPL.
This is very clearly documented in HTC's Legal Documents bundled with the phone. Also clearly documented is the fact that this is the department I am to contact in order to be provided with the source code. Please read the Legal Documents bundled with the HTC Hero (Sprint), consult with a Supervisor, and let me know whether or not HTC will be complying with their End-User License Agreement. If the terms of the End-User License Agreement differ from what is provided with the phone, I would like a copy of the new document.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"

Nice dude!
Way to push them using their own EULA.
I look forward to seeing how this unfolds

Legal department would probably respond better to pressure.
18. Notices. HTC may give you all notices (including legal process) that HTC is required to give by any lawful method, including by posting notice on the Site or by sending it to any email or mailing address that you provide to HTC. You agree to keep your email and mailing addresses current and to check for notices posted on the Site. You agree to send HTC notice by mailing it to HTC’s “Address for Legal Notices” which is:
HTC Corporation
No. 23 Xing-Hua Rd.
330 Taoyuan City
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Attn: Legal Department
With a copy to:
HTC America, Inc.
13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98005
Attn: Legal Department
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

My original response to this thread was going to be "not another thread like this...", but then I read your replies to them. I like how you're handling it so far and how you're using their own rules against them

Welcome to round 2 everybody! Hope it doesn't take as long as it did last time. How bout we send them a transcript of the last kernel request thread.

I am glad to see this going again. Like Mrbiggz said, maybe it wont take as long this time.

They released the Eris source like a week after 2.1 was pushed out to their phones.
Wonder why the delay.
-------------------------------------
Sent from my Android phone.

Prolly cause they are pissed about last time. We were relentless and now they want to make us pay for it. LOLOL

cmccracken said:
For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...

jporter12 said:
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.

I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.

fortune82 said:
I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't take full credit for this approach. The last go-around, I repeatedly had a member of the Google Android team suggest that I "read the legal docs" on the phone. I think I finally caught what he was saying between the lines.

In reality the haven't released the code to us because there is a giant sectionof comment in the kernel source that says. and I qoute - "... this line of code is horribly written and would allow for a buffer over run kernel exploit for elivated privledges (i.e. ROOT/TOOR) if a hacker happens to notice the null pointer called *thisIsNotAnExploitLoopHole ..." It then goes on to show the code that can be used to exploit it, but that got lengthy.

@OP, very well put. Let's hope for a 2.1 Kernal release very soon.

Well looks like its going to be another battle with them to get this out, I'm in again and will post the responses that I revive.
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App

We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.

cmccracken said:
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha. Something I did not know about that made me look like a total newb... Oh wait, I AM newbsauce!
I'm with Kcarpenter in that they wouldn't want to let it out now to give the devs here access to an exploit that woudl give us root!

ricersniper said:
We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see it happening until after it's rooted.

[NEWS][KERNEL][4.10.2011] Thunderbolt Kernel by Ziggy

For those familiar with Ziggy's work, he finally compiled a kernel for the Thunderbolt. It is a beta kernel so there will be bugs, so test it out. For reporting bugs please comment on his website. He is a great kernel dev. Please donate to him if you like his work. I am in no way affiliated with Ziggy, just wanted to spread the news.
UPDATE: My previous thread was closed because of a direct link I provided. I decided to create a new thread just for discussion purposes and bug tracking. You can google "ziggy471" to get to his site for the kernel. You can also google the name of the latest kernel update for the link.
Latest Kernel Update:
Beta Kernels 10 Apr 11

Running BFS kernel, and getting the best battery life I've ever experienced. HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND.

Last thread was closed because ziggy is not following GPL and is not posting his source, which is required. XDA cracks down hard on people who do not follow GPL.

nemesys504 said:
For those familiar with Ziggy's work, he finally compiled a kernel for the Thunderbolt. It is a beta kernel so there will be bugs, so test it out. For reporting bugs please comment on his website. He is a great kernel dev. Please donate to him if you like his work. I am in no way affiliated with Ziggy, just wanted to spread the news.
UPDATE: My previous thread was closed because of a direct link I provided. I decided to create a new thread just for discussion purposes and bug tracking. You can google "ziggy471" to get to his site for the kernel or use the pic attached for reference. You can also google the name of the latest kernel update for the link.
Latest Kernel Update:
Beta MECHA Kernel 6 Apr 11
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't get it...

cabagekiller said:
Last thread was closed because ziggy is not following GPL and is not posting his source, which is required. XDA cracks down hard on people who do not follow GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct and I spoke to Ziggy on this issue and was told when his kernel is stable enough he will release his source.
adrynalyne said:
You don't get it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whether I get it or not, I think his kernel deserves a forum for discussion. Thank you for your 2 cents.

I agree, my battery life is amazingly good.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA Premium App

His new test ones are out.

ridobe said:
His new test ones are out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah and it comes with a script! lol

Anyone else's phone running super hot with the new kernel that was released today? Mine is just too hot to touch almost...thinking about going back to the kernel before this update if it doesn't change soon.
Thunderbolt Rooted!

andrew53517 said:
Yeah and it comes with a script! lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have access to a computer all the time (or very often). Is there a way to copy/paste that script into the init.d folder through Root Explorer (or another app) instead of having to push it with ADB? Thanks in advance for any help!
Edit: Nevermind I figured it out. Having random restarts with the Kernel though so I'm reverting back to the BFS 4-6-11 kernel. That one was rock solid and the only issue was the proximity sensor.

I have his 4-10 BFS, what are you suppose to do with the script and why?

Going by what Ziggy said on his blog, the script is used to lower voltages/save a lot of power. I didn't have good luck with the kernel/script combo or just the kernel itself. It ran super hot and I was getting random lockups and random reboots on even the stock clock frequency. I moved back to the 040611 BFS kernel since the only issue I had with that kernel was the proximity sensor. The 040611 kernel also had insanely good battery life (or at least for how I use the phone, it did).

LSUstang05 said:
Going by what Ziggy said on his blog, the script is used to lower voltages/save a lot of power. I didn't have good luck with the kernel/script combo or just the kernel itself. It ran super hot and I was getting random lockups and random reboots on even the stock clock frequency. I moved back to the 040611 BFS kernel since the only issue I had with that kernel was the proximity sensor. The 040611 kernel also had insanely good battery life (or at least for how I use the phone, it did).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. It locked up on me too and ran super super hot. Reverted back till fixed.
Thunderbolt Rooted!

nemesys504 said:
Whether I get it or not, I think his kernel deserves a forum for discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
LSUstang05 said:
Going by what Ziggy said on his blog, the script is used to lower voltages/save a lot of power. I didn't have good luck with the kernel/script combo or just the kernel itself. It ran super hot and I was getting random lockups and random reboots on even the stock clock frequency. I moved back to the 040611 BFS kernel since the only issue I had with that kernel was the proximity sensor. The 040611 kernel also had insanely good battery life (or at least for how I use the phone, it did).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mine didn't lock up, but it was warm all the time (even when i wasn't using it) and had insane battery drain, like 40% in 2 hours. i reverted to 4-6-11 kernel and all is well again
edit: this is obvious to xda regulars, but noobs should download & flash the MECHA kernels for Tbolt. all other roms are for other devices. if you flash your new Tbolt with an EVO rom, you will be a very sad panda

Where is the source for this kernel?

jlevy73 said:
Where is the source for this kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has been asked several times, so I figured i would jump in and share what I know...
I speak to Ziggy almost daily when helping him debug stuff and he has spoken rather openly about this. He's not playing games or avoiding the issue and is going to post his sources and patches soon. There are one-and-a-half reasons he hasn't so far:
The half reason: There are some voltage issues and frankenstine tree problems that are causing some non-booters that need to be fixed before a public release can be considered safe. Now, the reason this is a "half reason" is because some may argue that he still needs to release it under GPL terms even though it's a beta, while others would argue that HTC doesn't release their betas under the GPL until they are safe either. If they did, HTC would have dropped their source 6 months ago, but they didn't. So it's an argument of where you stand semantics. I'm not telling you where to stand on that one - make up your own mind. However, it is worth noting that Ziggy himself never started a TB kernel thread SPECIFICALLY for the reason that he did not want to violate XDA's terms in accordance with the GPL. Other users started their own Ziggy threads independently
The bigger reason: He is currently in talks with an intellectual property attorney in order to retain personal IP rights on some of the code he has personally written, and was advised by that attorney to not release his full source under the GPL since that source would include the code he is trying to secure. Once that is taken care of, he will release the bulk of his source and patches, while retaining a few flashable patches for himself of his own personal code to further enhance the kernel - assuming he gets that all worked out with the IP lawyer.
That may frustrate some people, while making others very happy. I can also tell some of the devs are getting anxious since they see Ziggy added/changed/removed over 35,000 lines of code in the TB kernel and their eyebrows raise a little and they want his source so they can see what he's up to I don't know where you stand on the issue, nor will I tell you which side to take. I already have his source so quite frankly I don't care either. Again, I'm just the messenger sharing what I know. Don't hate on me if you don't like the info above - it's not my call
You'll all get the source/patches soon enough

i can't say i blame ziggy for doing things this way. it's his kernel, he has the right to do what he wants with it, including seeking intellectual rights. i'm glad he made his kernels available for the rest of us to try. more rom/kernel options is good for all of us

IANAL but sounds like walking a fine line...any of the witheld patches will be designed specifically for the purpose of merging with GPL licensed code. I'm sure the attorney knows his stuff, but at minimum doesn't seem in the spirit of AOSP.

eschelon said:
This has been asked several times, so I figured i would jump in and share what I know...
I speak to Ziggy almost daily when helping him debug stuff and he has spoken rather openly about this. He's not playing games or avoiding the issue and is going to post his sources and patches soon. There are one-and-a-half reasons he hasn't so far:
The half reason: There are some voltage issues and frankenstine tree problems that are causing some non-booters that need to be fixed before a public release can be considered safe. Now, the reason this is a "half reason" is because some may argue that he still needs to release it under GPL terms even though it's a beta, while others would argue that HTC doesn't release their betas under the GPL until they are safe either. If they did, HTC would have dropped their source 6 months ago, but they didn't. So it's an argument of where you stand semantics. I'm not telling you where to stand on that one - make up your own mind. However, it is worth noting that Ziggy himself never started a TB kernel thread SPECIFICALLY for the reason that he did not want to violate XDA's terms in accordance with the GPL. Other users started their own Ziggy threads independently
The bigger reason: He is currently in talks with an intellectual property attorney in order to retain personal IP rights on some of the code he has personally written, and was advised by that attorney to not release his full source under the GPL since that source would include the code he is trying to secure. Once that is taken care of, he will release the bulk of his source and patches, while retaining a few flashable patches for himself of his own personal code to further enhance the kernel - assuming he gets that all worked out with the IP lawyer.
That may frustrate some people, while making others very happy. I can also tell some of the devs are getting anxious since they see Ziggy added/changed/removed over 35,000 lines of code in the TB kernel and their eyebrows raise a little and they want his source so they can see what he's up to I don't know where you stand on the issue, nor will I tell you which side to take. I already have his source so quite frankly I don't care either. Again, I'm just the messenger sharing what I know. Don't hate on me if you don't like the info above - it's not my call
You'll all get the source/patches soon enough
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do appreciate the quite thorough explanation regarding the rationale of not releasing his kernel source. While GPL is a discussion for another day, the whole thing for me is by definition, Android is AOSP. I'm seeing a disturbing trend not amongst developers so much but from manufacturers re-writing the rules on being Open Source. Take Motorola for example. They release all phones with a hardware lock on their bootloaders. Poor folks using the Atrix have to go through a ridiculous side loader app to download anything not from the market. Perhaps Google should start a new branch called the Android Unopen Source Project
Anyway, I don't know all the specifics behind Ziggy's IP issues so not knowing the full extent of the facts I won't comment on that. I respect Ziggy and appreciate what he brings to Android. I just don't want to see developers close their source code because if Cyanogen took that some approach where do you think the development community would be today?

Post removed

HTC delaying on posting kernel source code

So I've been attempting to get HTC to comply with the GPL license and release the source code for the One S (one x needs it too), and I got the standard 90-120 day response. However, this isn't acceptable, as that's 90-120 violations of the GPL license, which requires that they provide it to you upon request, not "in 90-120 days".
I've responded to them again, reminding them of their duty to lawfully abide by the terms. I urge each of you to do the same, and in a calm, collected manner.
I'm not sure where your open source community requirements came from, but with all due respect, 90 to 120 days is not acceptable. I think it's important that I point out to you HTC's lawful obligation to abide by the terms of the General Public License (GPL) v2, as the Linux kernel that HTC uses for its Android phones requires that HTC release its source code immediately. As this device has now been released in at least 2 countries, HTC must follow that obligation, and in a timely manner. 90 to 120 days is in no way a timely manner, and accounts for a significant percentage of the device's realistic life as a current HTC product.
If you'll note in the GPL v2 License, there is no 90-120 day grace period for releasing source code. If HTC has provided the Linux kernel binary to any single customer (in this case, it has been delivered via many HTC One S's), then HTC is obligated to provide a copy, upon request, of that specific source code (in this case, the T-Mobile USA HTC One S). Section 3 of TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION makes clear note of these terms.
HTCdev.com has been a definite improvement on HTC's stance regarding source code distribution and openness, but there is much work that is needed to be done. In particular, the timeliness of providing source code is still troubling. HTC makes great phones, but still has a duty to the open source community. There is certainly something to gain by abiding by these terms and distributing the source code to the community. Many technology enthusiasts and developers are eager to get their hands on the code and make their own improvements. The HTC One V model, which has been released alongside the One S and One X, already has its source code posted on the HTCdev website. However, the One S and One X (all variants) are STILL lacking, and each day that HTC delays is a willful violation of the GPL.
I respectfully request that you release the source code for my device in a timely manner. It would be in the best interests of both HTC and the open source software community, and can only serve to strengthen HTC's relationship with the community.
Thank you kindly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Well, looks like they're eager to play ball, and I don't mean that in a good way. Any of you EU folks care to remind them that the device has been out over a month over there across the pond? The more pressure the better.
Dear Nick,
I appreciate your input concerning the availability of the kernel source codes for our Android devices. I realize that you are eager to get the source code for your device; but this device is a recent release in the US market. I would recommend you keep an eye on the HTC Developer website for further source code release information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

well written that !!
Mind if i copy and paste it ? and re send it to them ?

Sure, my letter is "open-sourced" . Feel free to modify and make any improvements. They're trying to use the excuse that it's a recent release, yet you EU guys have had it for several weeks now, so I'm interested to see how they'll respond to you. Make sure you use your EU model in your letter.
The thing that kills me is that they think that 90-120 days is acceptable. That's 3-4 months. In 3-4 months, HTC will already be over 50% complete with some sort of new phone, and the One S will no longer be in its youthful stages. When a phone lasts you 2 yrs on average, 90-120 days is a significant period of time. One of the things that attracts developers to a phone community is the availability of the source code. Until then, interest will continue to remain what it is now.

Oh man, my first post here. Coming from a Legend, stuff's new
So, I guess I'll translate that WoT and write it to the german HTC Support, let's see their response!

bump.

bump. maybe we could get this stickied until they release the code? Its currently a major development issue.

How long does HTC usually need to respond? Sent my request yesterday, let's hope they'll get the code to the devs as fast as possible ._.

I received a response in about 2 days.

phin586 said:
I received a response in about 2 days.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Telling you to please wait 90-120 days? If so, respond back, remind them every single day is a willful violation of the GPL license. If they've distributed the kernel in binary form to ANY SINGLE CUSTOMER (as it is on the phone), then they're obligated to provide the source code for that specific binary. And we've got plenty of binaries out in the wild, in both the EU and US, and under multiple versions.
HTC is playing games once again, and their approach to developers is once again becoming a joke. I don't understand what's so difficult about following the rules.
Sometimes they'll even play the "it's not in a readable format" card. Only problem there is -- if it's not readable, then how on Earth did they develop it? It's gotta be readable in order to make it in the first place.

Let's see what the german support has to say about this
I'd love to see my One S being S-Off. I want that stock ICS

@nickmv, Of course I did. Hopefully it helps.
---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 PM ----------
Oh. I also reported the violation to gnu.org
I suggest you all do the same.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

bump.
Keep hammering them, folks.

nickmv said:
bump.
Keep hammering them, folks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Someone needs to link this thread in the one X forum
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA

Once I get my hands on my very own One S tomorrrow I will contact the Dutch HTC. Even though I dont dislike sense at all development is in everyones best interest!
Sent from my GT-S5660 using XDA

Ah, my generic reply...
Thank you for your reply. I understand your concerns with the situation John, but rest assured that we will release the kernel source within 90 to 120 days John. We thank you for your patience while awaiting the sources to be posted, and thank you for being a part of the HTC community.
If this answers your comment or question, please click here to complete the process.
To submit another comment, please click here.
Sincerely,
The HTCDev Team
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Ok so i emailed them yesterday and this is their reply
Thanks for contacting HTC.
Reagrding your email about One X kernel source code, HTC are currently in the process of providing the HTC One X and One S Kernel Source Codes via the HTCDev website.
We have already uploaded the One V code and hope to provide the One X and One S very soon. Please keep checking the HTCDev site, http://htcdev.com, over the coming weeks for the source codes you are after.
I hope this information meets with your approval, please don't hesitate to reply if you require further assistance.
Let me know if I have successfully answered your question, please click here to complete this.
To send a reply to this message, please click here.
Sincerely,
Jason
HTC
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have replied to that above message with this.
Thanks for the quick reply, However i do not understand why it is taking HTC so long to release this, The One S has been available for several weeks now, It was released before the One V and yet the Kernel source code for that phone is available.. The android community is open source, And with HTC delaying the release of the source code is breaching the conditions mentioned in the GPL. You have the code otherwise the phone wouldn't have been released, So why cant you just release it immediately? Why are you delaying it ? The longer HTC hold it, The slower development for this device is, Which is not fair on people like me who want to speed development up for this device. Telling me that the codes will be released 'in a few weeks' is barbaric I would like an estimated time frame. The main thing i want to know is why you haven't released it already. Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
EDIT: Their reply to the above is:
Dear aaron maher,
Thansk for your reply.
I do appreciate your need for this data, but am not permitted to enter into speculation or personal discussion.
We have to wait for the Dev teams to upload it to the website, I can only apologise this is causing you frustration.
Please be assured, it is something there working towards and will be avaiable there soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I find that extremely rude ! dont you ??

azzledazzle said:
Ok so i emailed them yesterday and this is their reply
I have replied to that above message with this.
EDIT: Their reply to the above is:
I find that extremely rude ! dont you ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely. Gotta remember, half of this is complete bull****. At least they're not going overboard and pulling the "it's not in readable format" crap.

azzledazzle said:
Ok so i emailed them yesterday and this is their reply
I have replied to that above message with this.
EDIT: Their reply to the above is:
I find that extremely rude ! dont you ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, quite rude, I assume this person is the Jason who replied your first email. He must have not been trained properly regarding what customer satisfaction means nor how to reply in a professional language without copy/paste existing answers.
However, just don't piss off because of this, I have had the "honour" to visit one call centre (not HTC) and chatted to the senior manager in CS department and the front line support staff. It is a common problem that the front line customer service staff most of time do not know exactly what they are talking about nor have enough knowledge to answer non-standard question. I assume the team replying email is the same. So basically unless they ask their manager your question, you won't get satisfied answer. However, they won't because it will show that they are lack of knowledge and directly affect their appraisal.
Shame... but do send email to them so they will eventually understand how to satisfy this question.

Keep hammering at them guys!

HTC ICS Kernel & Drivers Sources

Dear All,
Are you as pissed off as I am by how HTC promised for open source and hasn't kept its promise?
I have asked their support line, on their ics blog and were in touch with HTC Officials personally. Never got an answer for that.
So here's an open letter to HTC that I am thinking.
What is the criteria to decide on which phones receive updates in what order, why some phones are given deadlines while others are "sometime later this year"
What happened to HTC's promise for open source? Why do you not release kernel and driver sources for ICS?
Why the unlocking is limited and will you provide a true unlock solution.
If there is enough attention, I would like to use social media to draw HTC's attention.
Who's with me?

Join the crew man! There are several people who are trying to contact HTC daily for these things. Also, a true unlock solution should be on your list!
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium

hceylan said:
Dear All,
Are you as pissed off as I am by how HTC promised for open source and hasn't kept its promise?
I have asked their support line, on their ics blog and were in touch with HTC Officials personally. Never got an answer for that.
So here's an open letter to HTC that I am thinking.
What is the criteria to decide on which phones receive updates in what order, why some phones are given deadlines while others are "sometime later this year"
What happened to HTC's promise for open source? Why do you not release kernel and driver sources for ICS?
If there is enough attention, I would like to use social media to draw HTC's attention.
Who's with me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well for the most part the drivers are not theirs to offer as open source. They belong to another company that will never release the source for them. The kernel sources are posted normally with in a fair amount of time.
Alot of time the carriers (For US phones) have more control over the updates then the OEM. Take the Desire HD and the US version the Inspire. The Desire HD has gotten 2 updates, one for a sercurity issue and one for a Sense version update. While the Inspire got nothing.

Give this a read and feel free to post it or add to it and make HTC hear us!
http://goo.gl/3T4NK
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium

imheroldman said:
Join the crew man! There are several people who are trying to contact HTC daily for these things. Also, a true unlock solution should be on your list!
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that I am not the only one. But to draw a big attention we need to get together and today the answer for that is social media. AFAIK, there is no social media group currently to address the issue.
On the other hand, yep you are right, adding the true unlock issue.

zelendel said:
Well for the most part the drivers are not theirs to offer as open source. They belong to another company that will never release the source for them. The kernel sources are posted normally with in a fair amount of time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Will never release the source code" is a bold statement. 25 years ago one wouldn't think an enterprise would ever release the source codes. But the times changed and the demand from the community got bigger so they were forced to and adopted a new way doing business.
This was a wave in Linux case, first the kernel was open source, now *almost* every driver is now open source, including companies like Intel.. An exception to that would be Nvidia. But with the nouveau project, sooner or later they will start to cooperate. As in Nvidia PC business most of the customers are non-Linux customers that is not yet an issue for them. On the other side, they are too under pressure on the mobile land with their tegra line.
Provided the above is correct, if there were an enough *united* community demand, first the OEMs / Carriers will be on the front line then they will turn to their hardware providers to opensource the drivers.
Correct me if I am wrong but a driver is merely a bridge between the kernel and the hardware, so I really do not get it the reason to keep it closed.
As for the kernel sources, I still do not see and 3.x.x source for devices other then Sensation and One line. ICS was released mid November. I am sure OEMs like HTC got their hands on it before that, so it is over 5 months they haven't released updates. I know that updates aren't produced overnight, yet 5+ months is quite disappointing. So I disagree with "fair amount of time" part.
zelendel said:
Alot of time the carriers (For US phones) have more control over the updates then the OEM. Take the Desire HD and the US version the Inspire. The Desire HD has gotten 2 updates, one for a sercurity issue and one for a Sense version update. While the Inspire got nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see the point here. I see the sources for "Carrier's devices" on htcdev.com. So it is not a "being open issue". On the other hand, releasing updated sources and pushing updates to devices I think are not the same things.

imheroldman said:
Give this a read and feel free to post it or add to it and make HTC hear us!
http://goo.gl/3T4NK
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great write up! But the main point I am trying to make a *united* move. So with all the respect, a blog shouldn't be the point to gather up. Having said that a text like your's would constitute the detail of the open letter I am envisioning...

Feel free to use it, the quote in the middle is from toastcfh, the rest is mine. I am fully behind what ever move there is to get HTC to really unlock their phones and give true open source codes. They are putting up a front to developers that they are friendly but the process is so hindered we have to rely on leaks and crazy s-off methods, and even with source you can no longer flash a kernel or boot image with our a pain in the neck. There are plenty of people who want these things and we do need to approach HTC as a community!
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium

Been spamming them on Twitter already for weeks. Bloody HTC, I hate them now
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium

imheroldman said:
There are plenty of people who want these things and we do need to approach HTC as a community!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the spirit we need!
Now I am not %100 knowledgeable about XDA rules. Would it be OK to post a link to this thread to every HTC device Android forum?

90 day marker - ICS Source code!

OK HTC ITS BEEN 90 DAYS, YOU KEEP SAYING YOUR SORRY FOR A CRAPPY PHONE HOW ABOUT YOU REDEEM YOURSELVES AND RELEASE THE DAMN SOURCE CODE NOW?
im just saying....

Patience. They can't release until its been 90 days since ota. Now that it has been 90 days they can but it doesn't mean they will. They can wait however long they desire. All I know is were getting closer.
Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt

ang1dust said:
OK HTC ITS BEEN 90 DAYS, YOU KEEP SAYING YOUR SORRY FOR A CRAPPY PHONE HOW ABOUT YOU REDEEM YOURSELVES AND RELEASE THE DAMN SOURCE CODE NOW?
im just saying....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will be OK there Catwoman.
Sent from my Infected HTC Rezound using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Its 90-120 days people.....
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

disconnecktie said:
Its 90-120 days people.....
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have 45 more days. They will drop the source. But when the update went out they said 45 days to complete. Add that to the 90 by law.
Sent from my ConD3m3dPaC-man ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app

People, there is no 90-day "rule". Why do people keep repeating this like it's a fact ?

hallstevenson said:
People, there is no 90-day "rule". Why do people keep repeating this like it's a fact ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the point is HTC is trying to position themselves as "developer friendly". I'm not sure what the rules are, but it seems pretty unfriendly for them to withhold the code for this long. If they want to be seen as developer friendly, let them start releasing code for all devices at the same time as the OTA, or at least within a couple weeks. I can see them pointing fingers at Verizon for months of delay on the OTA, but delaying the release of the source code is on HTC. It just seems mean spirited as well.
If HTC really wants to indicate they are sorry for how Thunderbolt issues have been handled, they should release the source code.

hallstevenson said:
People, there is no 90-day "rule". Why do people keep repeating this like it's a fact ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC is the one that stated that they can wait anywhere for 90-120 days to release their source code to ensure it is of the utmost quality. So all this repetition of it is merely because they made that statement. In response to the other quote about them about adding another 45 days because of the second update. I don't think that they will reset since the second update didn't do anything to the kernel at all.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

disconnecktie said:
HTC is the one that stated that they can wait anywhere for 90-120 days to release their source code to ensure it is of the utmost quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They clearly don't give a sh*t about the GPL as it doesn't allow 90 days or 120 days and that's all that really matters. When they say they can wait any period of time, they're effectively telling people "we'll do it if we feel like it".

Source will be available when HTC decides to publish it. Counting down the supposed days until release won't accomplish anything, nor will creating threads like this one and beating the topic to death. If one wants source, he or she would be better served by harassing HTC on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc... Source will eventually be released though, that is certain...

Go to the link in this thread and ask them directly.
http://www.forums.infectedrom.com/showthread.php?p=74402
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

There is no 90 day rule. The GPL requires release of source at the same time the binary is distributed, no ifs, ands, buts.
One of these days, a kernel developer (i.e. someone who holds copyright on part of the kernel) is going to sue them, win, and they will never be able to use the kernel again, per the terms of the GPL. HTC is playing with fire, since a significant part of their business requires use of the Linux kernel.
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
The GPL provides NO mechanism to regain those lost rights.

The kernel for the thunderbolt contains proprietary information that relates to the svdo technology therefore they can wait.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

disconnecktie said:
The kernel for the thunderbolt contains proprietary information that relates to the svdo technology therefore they can wait.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, they can't. You obviously haven't read, or don't understand, GPL2. If they modified the kernel, or linked to it for "the svdo technology," they still have to release it, and that code is not proprietary, but also falls under GPL2.
"when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

Some light GPL reading and an explanation about the "free" parts of Android and the "non-free" parts.
Check it out!
Excerpt from the article:
Important firmware or drivers are generally proprietary also. These handle the phone network radio, WiFi, bluetooth, GPS, 3D graphics, the camera, the speaker, and in some cases the microphone too.
On some models, a few of these drivers are free, and there are some that you can do without—but you can't do without the microphone or the phone network radio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mike.s said:
No, they can't. You obviously haven't read, or don't understand, GPL2. If they modified the kernel, or linked to it for "the svdo technology," they still have to release it, and that code is not proprietary, but also falls under GPL2.
"when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The code related to svdo is a non free part. You will notice that the rezound also suffers from the same waiting period as the bolt since it to has svdo.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

disconnecktie said:
The code related to svdo is a non free part. You will notice that the rezound also suffers from the same waiting period as the bolt since it to has svdo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what? It may make a difference to what developers are able to do with it (e.g. kernel without the proprietaries doesn't allow a working system to be created), but it doesn't in any way remove their obligation to release the kernel source at the same time they release the kernel binary.
And, I'll admit I don't know how the kernel and the svdo stuff interact. But basically, if it's linked to the kernel (vs. working in userspace), then it's not non-free, as it is required to be released under GPL.

mike.s said:
So what? It may make a difference to what developers are able to do with it (e.g. kernel without the proprietaries doesn't allow a working system to be created), but it doesn't in any way remove their obligation to release the kernel source at the same time they release the kernel binary.
And, I'll admit I don't know how the kernel and the svdo stuff interact. But basically, if it's linked to the kernel (vs. working in userspace), then it's not non-free, as it is required to be released under GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sue them then and quit *****ing because they wait 90 days to release source code. Since you obviously know more about the gpl than those of us who work with the stuff then you should even take the lead and make the case for the rest of us. Radio technology is in the kernel or else the antennas wouldn't work. Since this device has svdo technology that is proprietary to Verizon and HTC then yea I would have to say that is a non free license. At any rate go file complaints with HTC and the gpl. It has already been don and it won't do you any good. Have fun with that.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

disconnecktie said:
Sue them then and quit *****ing because they wait 90 days to release source code. Since you obviously know more about the gpl than those of us who work with the stuff then you should even take the lead and make the case for the rest of us. Radio technology is in the kernel or else the antennas wouldn't work. Since this device has svdo technology that is proprietary to Verizon and HTC then yea I would have to say that is a non free license. At any rate go file complaints with HTC and the gpl. It has already been don and it won't do you any good. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For someone who works with "the stuff," you're pretty clueless as to how it works. Maybe you should lay off "the stuff" for a while.

mike.s said:
For someone who works with "the stuff," you're pretty clueless as to how it works. Maybe you should lay off "the stuff" for a while.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever you say chief. I'm guessing you've compiled some kernels and looked through kernel source. I guess we should take your lead and just whine about it the same thing that has plagued the bolt since day one some more just like you seem to do. Quit worrying about the day that kernel source drops and let those that are actually going to do something with the source do the worrying. You clearly don't understand that there is proprietary code in the thunderbolt source code which allows HTC to take their time with the release. I suppose you know that since you are so well versed in kernel source code though....
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2