Database Info

If you have twitter....tweet to HTC so we can get our Kernel!!

I'm just putting this in a new thread so that everyone can see it without having to accidentally come across it in the Hero Source Attempts thread... Some other users have realized that if everyone who has a twitter account messages HTC through twitter, it becomes bad PR for them because everyone sees it, and they are more likely to meet our demands at a speedier pace.
If you really want lots of cool ROMs and lots of options, we gotta get that dang kernel, and this seems to be the best tactic so far. Supposedly it worked in getting the GSM kernel. SO GET TO WORK PEOPLE! START TWEETING/Messaging THROUGH TWITTER @HTC!!
Here is the original post by another user:
I personally believe that these two methods would work fastest. If they get 1000 emails, no one hears about it. But if they get 1000 tweets, or an article on Engadget, it's bad PR. This is basically what happened with the GSM Hero:
slashdot article - tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/1720224/HTC-Dragging-Feet-On-GPL-Source-Release-For-Hero-Phone
acknowledgement - twitter.com/htc/status/4928377685
compliance - twitter.com/htc/status/5071201112
admission of responsibility - twitter.com/htc/status/5071514606
(sorry, I've been a member for almost 3 years but this is my first post... can't post links)
I tweeted the following, please retweet or write your own similar: @htc When can we expect to see the CDMA (Sprint) Hero kernel source code? It's been 3 months, this is ridiculous! #gplviolation

I posted a tweet, lets hope this will push them to at least acknowledge the requests.

posted a tweet too hope it helps

Posted a Tweet, i pray engadet will pick up on this.

lol been posting at least 2 tweets a day for the last 3 days. glad to see others are joining in.

Yup. Tweeted
@HTC come on, it's long past the weekend.CDMA Hero sources please.#HTC get your act together #GPL #Violation #CDMA #Hero #Sources
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to try and get as many tags in as possible...
EDIT: Well, a search for #gplviolation on twitter is certainly interesting! (Try it...)

if you search htc you get a lot of people asking how to update to 2.x reply tweeet them to get the word out if you can.

Done! I hope we see something soon.

Done! Tweeting twice a day.

If you post a tweet regarding this, please be sure to include @htc, @sprint, and add the #gplviolation hashtag for tracking purposes.

tweet sent!

Does it really matter much if we get the kernel? As I understand it, there's a load of closed-source proprietary software running under the hood on our devices.

It depends. If HTC compiled proprietary code into the kernel itself, they're between a rock and a hard spot. Under the GPL, anything physically compiled into the kernel MUST have its source released. If HTC licensed proprietary camera drivers from anyone (Qualcomm, most likely) under terms that forbid them from disclosing the source, it's *their* problem to worry about.
IMHO, if that's the situation HTC is in, the best thing they could do to at least get everyone off their back would be to just go ahead and release their best 2.1 internal build (officially, for testing with the Android Emulator, since they can't officially condone rooting) as a "developer's preview". If they did, the necessary files would be ripped and built into a working 2.1 heroc distro within days, if not hours, and pretty much everyone would forget about the source for now & give them some breathing room for a few months.
As I understand it, even if HTC's 2.6.29 kernel had bugs, as long as those bugs weren't with msm_camera itself, we could use THAT 2.6.29 kernel to bootstrap newer builds of 2.6.29 (kind of like how Microsoft used prerelease versions of Visual Studio 2010 and Windows 7 to build Windows 7 itself). The problem now is that there's a literal hole in the 2.6.29 kernel that we can't fill, because we have neither the include file's source nor a compiled binary to drop in place.
Now, it's important to remember that we can't actually demand the 2.1 kernel yet under the GPL, since it hasn't actually been released yet. I'm only mentioning that as an *alternative* that would satisfy pretty much everyone for now, to give HTC some constructive alternatives to consider if releasing the full 1.5 kernel source for heroc is, in fact, completely out of the question due to licensing problems arising from msm_camera. Regardless of whether or not HTC can release the source to msm_camera for heroc, they can obviously redistribute 2.6.29 binaries built from it... and one of those binaries would be more than adequate for our purposes right now.

miamicanes said:
, it's important to remember that we can't actually demand the 2.1 kernel yet under the GPL, since it hasn't actually been released yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I realize you are referring to a CDMA-specific kernel (I thought 2.0 and after would be GSM and CDMA ready?), but the kernel for 2.1 HAS been commercially released. It's running on the Nexus One. Demanding the code under GPL is perfectly reasonable.
I mention this because this problem is now beyond any specific device. The manufacturers and carriers are, in my opinion, abusing the GPL and we ought to have a united front on that fact.

5tr4t4 said:
I realize you are referring to a CDMA-specific kernel (I thought 2.0 and after would be GSM and CDMA ready?), but the kernel for 2.1 HAS been commercially released. It's running on the Nexus One. Demanding the code under GPL is perfectly reasonable.
I mention this because this problem is now beyond any specific device. The manufacturers and carriers are, in my opinion, abusing the GPL and we ought to have a united front on that fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The source for the kernel compiled for the Nexus One, which uses completely different hardware, is (or must be) available. HTC does not need to provide it, as they are not the company selling the device - Google is.

^^^ Just to add to what he said, the kernel for the Nexus One also lacks the compiled-in driver for the CDMA Hero's camera.
Here's an example to illustrate why the GPL places so much practical importance upon the availability of ALL source used to build the kernel... and why it's generally accepted that proprietary binary kernel loadable modules are OK (at least, among pragmatists like Linus). Suppose the maker of your PC used a proprietary NVIDIA chipset with no public documentation, and shipped it with Ubuntu Linux on the hard drive. However, suppose they compiled the video driver directly into the kernel.
Anyone who bought the computer would be put in a needlessly bad position -- unless someone reverse-engineered the chipset, you wouldn't be able to use any distro of Linux not officially blessed and released by the computer's maker. You might be able to use a slightly newer build of Ubuntu if someone did a binary diff on the newer kernel and pulled out the metaphorical duct tape. You might possiblybe able to get away with using the old kernel in a newer distro (enjoying some bugfixes in the other programs besides the kernel itself). You might even be able to diff a newer build of Linux on a newer, but similar, computer released by that maker that they happened to ship with a newer kernel. But you'd never really be able to build your own kernel the way God and Linus intended, because the kernel and proprietary video driver would be inseparable. If you tried, the compiler would complain because it was missing a very, very important #include file -- the proprietary video driver.
On the other hand, suppose the manufacturer bundled the proprietary video driver as a loadable kernel module (.ko file). NOW, things change significantly. Richard Stallman might still grouse because you don't have the source to the video driver, but in utilitarian terms, you're much better off than you were in scenario #1. Although you're still dependent upon the manufacturer for a newer video driver, because it's physically separate from the kernel itself, you can build your own newer, better, and different kernels whenever and however you'd like. As long as the low-level interface between the kernel itself and the kernel module doesn't change on your platform, the two are sufficiently abstracted from each other to allow one to change without affecting the other.
IMHO, the most disgraceful part of this whole thing is that we theoretically have phones running an open platform, but we're still reduced to ripping binary images and tacking them together with metaphorical duct tape, just like we were with Windows Mobile. If anything, it's gotten worse. At least Windows Mobile didn't have to be rooted, and the newer versions generally didn't break the previous version's device drivers. Sigh.

miamicanes said:
^^^ Just to add to what he said, the kernel for the Nexus One also lacks the compiled-in driver for the CDMA Hero's camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, I understand this. I was making the point that the fact that 2.1 has a commercial release means the we can demand the code under GPL. Shouldn't we be aiming for a unified android kernel source with GSM and CDMA support, adding binary drivers/libs (or setting device-specific compile flags) as needed? Nexus being controlled by Google (who seems to be releasing their modifications immediately on git) might be a starting place for this de facto Android.
I'm simply advocating for thinking beyond our own personal devices.

Holy shut!!! Welcome to the age of technology.... **** with us and we will tweet Ur ass to death. Lol. It's an all Twitter offensive. Were declaring Twitter war on HTC until we get source. ROFL

@5tr4t4: well, it was more for the benefit of others who might stumble on this thread and aren't quite sure why it's such a big deal
I think what Jonnythan was saying is that there's no need to get the source to the Nexus One's kernel from HTC, because you can download it right now directly from Google.
As far as platform neutrality goes, we'd be 99.9% of the way there if HTC would just move the proprietary stuff out of the kernel proper and into loadable kernel modules so they'd simultaneously be in compliance with the GPL and not making our lives needlessly difficult by making us jump over hurdles that shouldn't be blocking our way in the first place

miamicanes said:
As far as platform neutrality goes, we'd be 99.9% of the way there if HTC would just move the proprietary stuff out of the kernel proper and into loadable kernel modules so they'd simultaneously be in compliance with the GPL and not making our lives needlessly difficult by making us jump over hurdles that shouldn't be blocking our way in the first place
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they were to move some stuff to binary *.ko's they'd most likely move all non-boot-essential hardware support out there, which would actually make things much, much more challenging for us. That way they could have a "universal" kernel (and GPL source tree) that is used across devices, and each device just has its own *.ko's. They'd only have to release one (fairly useless) tarball for GPL compliance. Be careful what you ask for.

T-Mobile: Why I'm returning my G2

Just posted a pretty lengthy message on the T-Mobile forums... Post replies there if possible.
http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/T-Mobile-G2/T-Mobile-Why-I-m-returning-my-G2/m-p/502593
Dear T-Mobile,
I thought I would write you this little note to explain why I have returned my G2. You see, Google created the Android Operating System to provide an Free, Open-Source alternative to proprietary Smart-Phone Operating Systems such as Windows Mobile and the iPhone. Google has done this to untangle the Smart-Phone ecosystem from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. The mantra of Open-Source software is: "If you don't like something, you can download the source and change it yourself!" Evidently, you do not understand this concept.
In case you were somehow unaware, the Linux kernel is protected by the GNU Public License (version 2). You can read the full license here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
By selling a locked-down device (such as the G2), you defeat the capability of developers to contribute to the Android platform. Many features in the mainline Android project have come from the "modder" community. Furthermore, your supplier, HTC, refuses to comply with the GNU license. Numerous attempts to contact them about this violation are met with the following form response:
"HTC will typically publish on developer.htc.com the Kernel open source code for recently released devices as soon as possible. HTC will normally publish this within 90 to 120 days. This time frame is within the requirements of the open source community."
This is not acceptable. Read the license - it is clearly states that source code must be made available to those who ask for it.
Adding insult to injury, you have also misrepresented the device by being less-than-honest about its specs and capabilities. Many users are surprised to find they only have 1.3GB available on a 4GB phone. Say what you will about "reserved space" - this is not the case on *any* other Android handset. Meanwhile, you have taken cash on the side to pre-load certain "useful applications" (crapware such as Photobucket) - which cannot be removed by the user. And to no one's surprise, you have removed built-in features of Froyo (such as Tethering.)
It's unfortunate that you have chosen this path for your Android handsets. Neither HTC nor T-Mobile own Android, Linux, or the numerous other software components contained therein. You cannot simply do with them as you please. Hopefully you will release future handsets without these restrictions - until then I will continue to support the efforts of those who unlock your software protection.
Regards,
An ex-G2 owner

Personally, I think you are blowing this "anti-root" debacle out of proportion.
G2 will be rooted, just give it time.
I will give you the 4GB w/ 1.3GB free space argument. No argument here.

SuperFly03 said:
Personally, I think you are blowing this "anti-root" debacle out of proportion.
G2 will be rooted, just give it time.
I will give you the 4GB w/ 1.3GB free space argument. No argument here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So wait... They should put all phones on read-only lock-down, refuse to provide source when obligated to do so by the GPL, mislead customers with specs (not just the 4GB), tear things out of the OS, fill my limited memory with useless applications that I dont' want, and cannot delete, etc....
I think it's safe to say, root aside, that they have failed on all these fronts. I'm not expecting them to just hand over persistent root - but it's my goddamn device. **** Tmo and HTC for all of the above.

How do you REALLY about htc and t-mobile?

I'm sure they're all getting out their tissues for you.
You can get off of the soapbox now.

HamNCheese said:
So wait... They should put all phones on read-only lock-down, refuse to provide source when obligated to do so by the GPL, mislead customers with specs (not just the 4GB), tear things out of the OS, fill my limited memory with useless applications that I dont' want, and cannot delete, etc....
I think it's safe to say, root aside, that they have failed on all these fronts. I'm not expecting them to just hand over persistent root - but it's my goddamn device. **** Tmo and HTC for all of the above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The requirement is 90-120 days after release right? We are 5 days into release.
The 4GB, as I said, I have no argument against because it is a bit misleading but then again there is an 8GB SDHC card.
The useless applications can be removed when rooted. Until then, I haven't seen an Android phone not come with at least a few useless applications. They suck but they can be removed eventually.
I agree with you that is your device that you paid for... I'm not a fan of content protection. I, in fact, hate it but the 1000 people who don't buy a device because of it don't compare to the 2million people who do buy the device so I don't get too worked up about it.
I think you are being a bit dramatic.

I totally agree with this letter root is my deciding factor on wether I'm purchasing this phone. And I'm purchasing it out rite. The whole 500. It irritates me I'm told what to dob with something I spent so much money on. I purchase a mts because I assumed I could root and write to system and what not because I wanted a phone with a keyboard and this was all that was out but I hated the espresso ui. Granted I can change roms but the lack of system writeable acess and no kernel has killed our mts development. The forum is a ghost town. I have a rooted g1 and let people use it as a loaner. Not one person has ever messed it up with root acess. Who is anyone to tell me what I can do with something I purchas. Would you buy a house and let someone tell you you can't changes the drapes or carpet. If your into cars or motorcycles you wouldn't purchase one and be told you can't upgrade the parts. I've never bought a computer I couldn't change my os on. And wasn't jailbreaking and unlocking made legal. So technically aren't anti root methodes illegal

Phone just came out dude give it time... there will be updates
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

HamNCheese said:
So wait... They should put all phones on read-only lock-down, refuse to provide source when obligated to do so by the GPL, mislead customers with specs (not just the 4GB), tear things out of the OS, fill my limited memory with useless applications that I dont' want, and cannot delete, etc....
I think it's safe to say, root aside, that they have failed on all these fronts. I'm not expecting them to just hand over persistent root - but it's my goddamn device. **** Tmo and HTC for all of the above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Misleading specs = bad, and possibly illegal
Bloatware = effing annoying
Not providing source = annoying, but the source requirement is worthless unless someone higher up in the chain enforces it
Removing things from the OS? Guess what: that's the other side of open source.
The G2 has its issues, and I don't fault people for returning it. I also personally prefer open hardware - the freedom to break what I have bought. But I agree with SuperFly03 that you are blowing things out of proportion. T-Mobile and HTC also have a right to make money and protect themselves from perceived customer abuses.

I like your letter and agree with you, if you were to create an electronic petition I would sign it as a 7+ year T-mo user paying $140+/mo for the last 3yr. I did sign such a petition 2yr ago after the g1 release, "keep android open" as I recall. Truth is your only other options are much more restrictive outside of the android OS. So much focus of Devs is on keeping android free and open that nothing the coperations do can stop them IMHO. Just keep the Devs beer/coffee coffers full and rejoyce in all that android was meant to be. BTW "Bandit Splash"

Buy a Moto Razr and call it a night.
- Fly like a G2

I would agree with you. Bloat ware is becoming popular with htc. I moved to the G2 from the EVO because of the non sense ui. Further more I think your letter is appropate for tmo. I decided to buy the phone out right from my work (Radioshack) without any service and running on wifi I have no disappointments yet. Besides spending the $500+ for the phone...
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

ezcape said:
Buy a Moto Razr and call it a night.
- Fly like a G2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or, never buy this bull**** from a carrier again. Instead, buy un-subsidized, or un-locked phones direct. Like my Nexus One.
I don't doubt that it will be rooted within a month... That's not the point. Hell, if it is, I might just buy it again. But I won't support either T-Mobile or HTC with this crap as-is.
SuperFly03 said:
The requirement is 90-120 days after release right? We are 5 days into release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. There is no specific time requirement (this was addressed in GPLv3, which has some other issues.) The GPL went into effect the moment the executable code was "distributed" (technically late September, when the first people got their deliveries - maybe earlier - depends on definition of "distribution"...)
I don't expect a next-day turn-around, but HTC pulled the 90-120 days out of their ass. If I ask for source, and they do not provide it, they are non-compilant. Period. End of story.
The point of all this? Call attention to the fact that they are abusing the GPL. All of the Android manufacturers see Android as a cash-cow. They are taking Linux and doing whatever-the-**** they want with it.
It's wrong, and I'm calling them on it. Nothing more.

I'm disappointed (and fairly angry) that I had to sign a 2 yr contract & pay cash out of pocket just to get a Device that has been been falsely advertised and has Disabilities...
T-mo always comes out w/ BS devices that suck, ones no-one else wants, and it seems they shafted us with their flagship Android successor.

HamNCheese said:
Or, never buy this bull**** from a carrier again. Instead, buy un-subsidized, or un-locked phones direct. Like my Nexus One.
I don't doubt that it will be rooted within a month... That's not the point. Hell, if it is, I might just buy it again. But I won't support either T-Mobile or HTC with this crap as-is.
Wrong. There is no specific time requirement (this was addressed in GPLv3, which has some other issues.) The GPL went into effect the moment the executable code was "distributed" (technically late September, when the first people got their deliveries - maybe earlier - depends on definition of "distribution"...)
I don't expect a next-day turn-around, but HTC pulled the 90-120 days out of their ass. If I ask for source, and they do not provide it, they are non-compilant. Period. End of story.
The point of all this? Call attention to the fact that they are abusing the GPL. All of the Android manufacturers see Android as a cash-cow. They are taking Linux and doing whatever-the-**** they want with it.
It's wrong, and I'm calling them on it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They can do what they choose with Android, Google backs them as they did officially state that limiting Android to a vanilla, untouched build would essentially violate the fundamentals of having an 'open' OS.
Its up to the consumer to decide what they like and they don't.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

SmartHat said:
I'm disappointed (and fairly angry) that I had to sign a 2 yr contract & pay cash out of pocket just to get a Device that has been been falsely advertised and has Disabilities...
T-mo always comes out w/ BS devices that suck, ones no-one else wants, and it seems they shafted us with their flagship Android successor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair, you didn't HAVE to sign a 2 year contract. It's really not worth it to save a couple of hundred bucks off the initial cost of the phone. Heck, I've seen unopened G2s on craigslist for around $400 already...
That being said, I still have until tomorrow to decide if I'm going to return this POS. I bought it outright, and my money is on this phone never being rooted. I know it hasn't been long yet, but it's not gonna happen.
EDIT: if this rumored OTA includes wifi tethering, I'll be happy. Also supposed to have a radio update...I guess I will wait and see!

seancneal said:
To be fair, you didn't HAVE to sign a 2 year contract. It's really not worth it to save a couple of hundred bucks off the initial cost of the phone. Heck, I've seen unopened G2s on craigslist for around $400 already...
That being said, I still have until tomorrow to decide if I'm going to return this POS. I bought it outright, and my money is on this phone never being rooted. I know it hasn't been long yet, but it's not gonna happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HamNCheese said:
Or, never buy this bull**** from a carrier again. Instead, buy un-subsidized, or un-locked phones direct. Like my Nexus One.
I don't doubt that it will be rooted within a month... That's not the point. Hell, if it is, I might just buy it again. But I won't support either T-Mobile or HTC with this crap as-is.
Wrong. There is no specific time requirement (this was addressed in GPLv3, which has some other issues.) The GPL went into effect the moment the executable code was "distributed" (technically late September, when the first people got their deliveries - maybe earlier - depends on definition of "distribution"...)
I don't expect a next-day turn-around, but HTC pulled the 90-120 days out of their ass. If I ask for source, and they do not provide it, they are non-compilant. Period. End of story.
The point of all this? Call attention to the fact that they are abusing the GPL. All of the Android manufacturers see Android as a cash-cow. They are taking Linux and doing whatever-the-**** they want with it.
It's wrong, and I'm calling them on it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good god... the phone has been out less than 6 days and there is so much negativity.
Wow... this is sad.

Please read this license page:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
under which Android is licensed. Android is released under the Apache Software License 2.0. Some parts may be GPL, such as the Linux Kernel, but overall the "Android" parts are covered by ASL v2.0 not GPL.

Clackamas said:
Please read this license page:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
under which Android is license. Android is released under the Apache Software License 2.0. Some parts may be GPL, such as the Linux Kernel, but overall it is covered by ASL v2.0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I refer to the GPL, I'm referring to Linux - the kernel. The Android license does not cover the kernel. I could care less about the source of dashboard and all that. The Apache license allows some bits to be closed. But Linux is the problem here - the kernel source does not fall into that category at all.
Good god... the phone has been out less than 6 days and there is so much negativity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine - which should be clear by now.
The time issue has to do with the 14 day "buyer's remorse" return period. My tracking number has to be visible by Thursday to be accepted, as I got the phone 2 weeks ago Friday.

HamNCheese said:
When I refer to the GPL, I'm referring to Linux - the kernel. The Android license does not cover the kernel. I could care less about the source of dashboard and all that. The Apache license allows some bits to be closed. But Linux is the problem here - the kernel source does not fall into that category at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And like many, you don't understand the GPL either.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
As Linus points out: Software using the standard interface and derived works are excluded. So, companies such as NVIDA and ATI can release drivers for the kernel without having to release the source to their "derived words". I am also unclear exactly where in the license it says source code must be immediately available. Surely it is a market disadvantage to require the release of such immediately with the product. That would be a significant liability to companies wishing to use GPL based code. 90 - 120 days isn't unreasonable. And the fact that the kernel version being used is publish means that > 90% of the source code is available at product release shows the spirit of intent.

{Make Sticky} We need Source

Dear Forums,
As we all know, the key to having a truly customizable device is having the source for their builds, and as we also all know, Viewsonic has not released the source code for their Gtablet.
If we all find the correct email to contact, much like all other companies they will be pressured into releasing the source to the community.
Let's get this done.
LETTER
Dear Viewsonic,
We are aware your company has directed many customers calling for technical support to the gTablet sub-forum of xda-developers
http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=841
Please consider listening to what the community as asking for.
By using the Linux Kernel in your device you are required by the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPLv2) to release the source code for the kernel. If there is any proprietary software involved in said code, then you have the right to protect your investment, and not include that with the source release.
We are entitled to the source to change our tablets in the way we see fit with the full understanding that when we modify our tablets software we remove ourselves from any sort of warranty you may offer.
Furthermore, we would like an open dialog between with your developers concerning the software which is shipped with the gTablet. It well known among the community that the return rate for the gTablet is unnaturally high. The version of Android developed by Tap n Tap does not provide a positive user experience for the average user. By this time you should be aware of such feedback coming from the main distributors of the gTablet, Sears and Staples. This situation will only continue to get worse as detailed professional reviews of this product begin to circulate around the Internet. One such review I am referring to will be posted to Anandtech.com in the next few days.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4054/first-look-viewsonic-gtablet-and-tegra-2-performance-preview
Barnes and Noble has released a Software Development Kit as well as source code to enable the community to make the Nook Color the best product it can be.
http://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/press_releases/2010_oct_26_nook_developer.html
Please follow their example. By working together we can make the gTablet a real competitor in the burgeoning tablet marketplace.
Sincerely,
The gTablet Community from xda-developers.com

I'll second that. Not sure what we can do, but they should be reminded.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

Viewsonic's main website has a support tab that you can send inquiries. Do you think it would get to the right place if we used that?

The email avenue did not work for me
xmr405o said:
Viewsonic's main website has a support tab that you can send inquiries. Do you think it would get to the right place if we used that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried using the email tech support method for the web site; got this response back:
Dear Mr. Walker,
Thank you for contacting ViewSonic Technical Support.
I apologize but as much as I wanted to assist you with it, the product that you are inquiring about is handled by a different technical department.
You may contact them by calling 1-866-501-6405 between 8am-5pm PST, Monday through Friday.
If you have other technical concerns, feel free to contact us again. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to assist you.
Sincerely,
Josef
ViewSonic Technical Support
(800) 688-6688 (USA)
(866) 463-4775(Canada)

[email protected] said:
I tried using the email tech support method for the web site; got this response back:
Dear Mr. Walker,
Thank you for contacting ViewSonic Technical Support.
I apologize but as much as I wanted to assist you with it, the product that you are inquiring about is handled by a different technical department.
You may contact them by calling 1-866-501-6405 between 8am-5pm PST, Monday through Friday.
If you have other technical concerns, feel free to contact us again. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to assist you.
Sincerely,
Josef
ViewSonic Technical Support
(800) 688-6688 (USA)
(866) 463-4775(Canada)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go for it. it has to drop sooner or later. the more pressure from the community, the better. I'll drop them a line as well.

I get the feeling that instead of taking the time to lock the device down like is done with phones and other android devices, they decided they will just not release the code and hope to stall out mods that way.

TheMongol said:
I get the feeling that instead of taking the time to lock the device down like is done with phones and other android devices, they decided they will just not release the code and hope to stall out mods that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That'd work, except for the fact that it's against the GPL, and that'd be breaking the law. They have to make it available, it's just a matter of pressuring them into doing so sooner than later.

just sent off my second email to viewsonic regarding the gtablet (along with a note telling them to fwd the email accordingly). i will let you guys know if i get a response.

Just called in. They are taking people's contact info that say they are android developers (they started doing that today) and they said they are not doing it to track us or anything like that, but to contact us...like say...when the source is released.
Everybody, call. Emailing isn't going to get you anywhere.
I informed them that they will legally have to release source under GPL, he said he will be passing that up to the developers. It sounds like we may be getting somewhere, but we need to call...the more the merrier. It sounds like they have a small call center so its not how many times you call, but how many different people call at this point.

myndwire said:
That'd work, except for the fact that it's against the GPL, and that'd be breaking the law. They have to make it available, it's just a matter of pressuring them into doing so sooner than later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh yes indeed. But that doesn't mean people won't try to get away with things from time to time. Perhaps they are not even aware. I know I am going to call and ask soon even though I just started developing on android.

I called them today, as well - good bunch of people over there and a pleasure to talk with them.
I'm serious - in a world of reps in third world countries speaking broken english and working off a script, the VS reps are a breath of fresh air and Viewsonic should be commended for that alone. I put in my usual request to please release the source and I was told that they will pass it onto the development team.
I don't expect anything to come from it, but they do know who I am and who we are, so I'm hoping that VS management throws us a bone once they realize what a mistake it was adding that TnT layer.

roebeet said:
I called them today, as well - good bunch of people over there and a pleasure to talk with them.
I'm serious - in a world of reps in third world countries speaking broken english and working off a script, the VS reps are a breath of fresh air and Viewsonic should be commented for that alone. I put in my usual request to please release the source and I was told that they will pass it onto the development team.
I don't expect anything to come from it, but they do know who I am and who we are, so I'm hoping that VS management throws us a bone once they realize what a mistake it was adding that TnT layer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. The guy I talked to was pretty cool. He also said that the developers are being very persistent about keeping TnT in place. Very nice to talk to someone that can actually speak English

scsione889 said:
I agree. The guy I talked to was pretty cool, and even he came out and said xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. He also said that the developers are being very persistent about keeping TnT in place. Very nice to talk to someone that can actually speak English
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Watch out, they read these forums, don't want to get the poor guy fired!

jacindc said:
Watch out, they read these forums, don't want to get the poor guy fired!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
x2 on that! Rule of thumb - if you write something here about a conversation with CS, assume that their management might read it and how that would look.

Just spoke with Mike @ Viewsonic gtablet support. First, they are very nice! Second, Mike said that they are working on a release, but no date yet. Finally, Mike said that they would be posting it to viewsonic.com/gtablet website (and to also check xda-developers.com for other updates).
They also took my e-mail address - hopefully to send out a blast when they are finally able to post it.
BTW, Mike - thanks!
I also have to echo others who have posted here - Thank you, Viewsonic, for having people who can speak English!!

I figured I would do my part as well. I called & spoke to a tech who said they were not releasing it & have no plans to do so. I said its linux based & the GPL says they have to release the source by law. He said they dont support changing the operating system. I said Android is linux based & falls under the GPL. He then transfered me to a senior tech who said:
Tap n tap is proprietary & therefore it doesn’t fall in the GPL. He said the TNT is also horrendous & they want to protect the tap n tap ‘investment’ which is why the source wont be released. They did not ask for my information aside from my first name for the conversation we had. He basically said they were not going to release the source regardless of how many people called. The only way to get it is to sue the company & force them to do so. Obviously, I am not looking to spend more money just to get the source. He knows that, the company knows that & until someone bucks up & hires an attorney, viewsonic doesn’t care.
He did say that they did get a number of calls, he feels for me, he said others have rooted it but tough titties (my summary).

RichTJ99 said:
He basically said they were not going to release the source regardless of how many people called. The only way to get it is to sue the company & force them to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boy, did my blood pressure just skyrocket.

RichTJ99 said:
I figured I would do my part as well. I called & spoke to a tech who said they were not releasing it & have no plans to do so. I said its linux based & the GPL says they have to release the source by law. He said they dont support changing the operating system. I said Android is linux based & falls under the GPL. He then transfered me to a senior tech who said:
Tap n tap is proprietary & therefore it doesn’t fall in the GPL. He said the TNT is also horrendous & they want to protect the tap n tap ‘investment’ which is why the source wont be released. They did not ask for my information aside from my first name for the conversation we had. He basically said they were not going to release the source regardless of how many people called. The only way to get it is to sue the company & force them to do so. Obviously, I am not looking to spend more money just to get the source. He knows that, the company knows that & until someone bucks up & hires an attorney, viewsonic doesn’t care.
He did say that they did get a number of calls, he feels for me, he said others have rooted it but tough titties (my summary).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info.
What I don't understand is why is it that HTC is bound to GPL in that it must release source for its devices even though the majority of HTC devices has the proprietary software, Sense?
I don't think having proprietary software on a device exempts a company from conforming to GPL.

i think they must be new to linux or HTC is very used to dealing with Linux.
The senior tech was sympathetic but was firm in repeating the company plans. Heck their twitter page sais the same exact thing.
It makes me wonder if I should return it.

RichTJ99 said:
i think they must be new to linux or HTC is very used to dealing with Linux.
The senior tech was sympathetic but was firm in repeating the company plans. Heck their twitter page sais the same exact thing.
It makes me wonder if I should return it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree- without source, the gtab won't be able to experience its full potential especially if Viewsonic thinks anyone likes tapntap. Makes me wonder if I should return mine even though (outside of a few annoyances) I really like the device.
Viewsonic has to release source. Their device is Linux based with a proprietary software user interface just like HTC devices. This is ridiculous.

Some Entertaining reading. GO XDA DEVs.

please try not to shoot the messenger here. Thought this may be of interest to some here.
Class Action
Also a Plausible explanation for the Delay...

Sighcosis said:
please try not to shoot the messenger here. Thought this may be of interest to some here.
Class Action
Also a Plausible explanation for the Delay...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The second article, if true, is what pisses me off.. Good job Samsung, you may be deceptively inflating the value of your Vibrant 4G, but, at the cost of the PR of thousands of customers who've already put value into your company.. brilliant!
Let's watch all those Fascinate owners hop over to the iPhone 4 on Febuary 10th because we STILL won't have OTA Froyo by then!!..

The lawsuit will fail. We are not guaranteed any updates, read the contract you signed when you got your phone.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App

not sure about if there is a case there or not.
But its is not all about updates.
I understand that to be a small part of it.
Apparently more to do with the GPS not working and basically not following in the Android Open Source Project scheme. I was reading up on that and from what I can understand of it their source should be available to Devs *hence the Open Source*.
Personally it costs me nothing and if it helps in getting the message out that as customers we are unhappy.. I am all in..
Twitter something to @SamsungMobileUS with #NeverAgain tag. That is another "movement" started by DEVs here at XDA.
this was mine
@SamsungMobileUS I have been a user of your fine video and audio devices for years. #NeverAgain will I purchase a Samsung device.
I am but one voice and can not be heard in the masses. But if I join the masses we can become a Shout or a Deafening Roar

Well let me go read the AOSP license..
and that aside.. who knows what license agreement Google and Samsung made? It is not necessarily the one on the code.
Here's the corporate license: http://source.android.com/source/cla-corporate.html
Well.. as far as I can tell (I'm no lawyer..) Samsung is not doing anything illegal:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
The are not required to redistribute their source at all for user space applications.. they are only required to retain the license and make sure they note where they have made changes. Code, however, may be distributed in source OR object format.
As far as the kernel (which is what we really need) they are only required to redistribute the source of any linux kernel they have in turn modified and then DISTRIBUTED. Key word distributed, and let me assure you, this has been done. The source for the current kernel on our device can be obtained from Samsung's open source website (albeit at obnoxiously throttled DL speeds.. ~70kb/s). I have it . Once they push 2.2 they will [have to] make the source available. I'm sure they will.

skitzo_inc said:
The lawsuit will fail. We are not guaranteed any updates, read the contract you signed when you got your phone.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also don't the lawsuit will succeed, but from what I gather its not about the update itself, its about them all saying we would get it and never getting it. The whole "false advertising" thing. Think about what kind of legal staff a multinational conglomerate like Samsung could put together. I love the fact that he is speaking out and getting a decent amount of attention, but in the long run will it do anything? Unfortunately I doubt it. I do not hate Samsung or US Cellular for that matter, in fact I love my Mez way better than my crapberry curve

droidzach said:
I also don't the lawsuit will succeed, but from what I gather its not about the update itself, its about them all saying we would get it and never getting it. The whole "false advertising" thing. Think about what kind of legal staff a multinational conglomerate like Samsung could put together. I love the fact that he is speaking out and getting a decent amount of attention, but in the long run will it do anything? Unfortunately I doubt it. I do not hate Samsung or US Cellular for that matter, in fact I love my Mez way better than my crapberry curve
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the business word the only promise is a contract. And even those can be broken..

I know this, if I worked at Verizon I would hold off the 2.2 update until after the Iphone4 is launched to beef up the sales of the new product. Then release 2.2 after sales have leveled out.

Honeycomb Rumor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting news ! Thanks for the share !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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