PHONE CARRIERS and GPL Violation (root access)

PHONE CARRIERS and GPL Violation (root access) - Android General

Have any of you really thought about the current Android root access situation?
Android, an operating system developed by Google, based on the work of Linus Torvalds et.al., distributed under GPL1,2 or 3 which supposedly protects it from being "owned" by any commercial organization and requires the source code for any modifications to be made available to the end user is currently owned by the commercial interests of the various phone carriers both here and in other countries. The very fact that we have to "hack" root access to a phone we purchased, based on a GPL operating system is, from my understanding, illegal. By locking the bootloader refusing to release sources and preventing the end user from altering an OS kernel they themselves don't own they have effectively ignored not only the legal purpose for the various GPL's but the entire spirit of Linux and it's open-source concept. They, meaning the various hardware MFG's, in conjunction/association with the various phone carriers, download free software written by Linus and other volunteer developers, edit it, compile it, add their own flavors to it then blatantly lock access to it by refusing to allow the end user to do the very thing Linux was interned to do, be modified to suit our whims. By not making the entire source code for the kernel and other FREE system utilities freely available aren't they violating the GPL?
Am I the only one who thinks Verizon, Motorola, AT&T, Samsung, HTC even Cricket and the others are just asking for a lawsuit? Isn't the very reason Google chose Linux upon which to base it's various and sundry data devices because it is open source?
The only possible reason they could have for preventing the development community from gaining operating system root access is so they can maintain a hand on your wallet. By writing apps that require you to pay double fees to use the same data connection you've already paid for such as "tether" is more than just dishonest, It's illegal. Not even the government is that dishonest.
comments?
UPDATED:
I stand corrected, the google source tree for the current kernel source is available from google. I haven't seen MFG specific source but I've been told it does exist and can be downloaded.

You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.

Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them. Nonetheless, there is no obvious GPL violation ongoing by any of the manufacturers you mentioned. Any GPL based code much be released as open source. And it is. All the major manufacturers have sections on their sites where you can download source of kernels etc. Proprietary code (e.g. Sense, TouchWiz etc.) can't be downloaded, but these aren't based on GPL code obviously. [If they were, the companies would be legally obligated to release source code].
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used. It doesn't have anything to do with security measures in place on the device on which code is run. Manufacturers are perfectly within their rights to prevent rooting or unlocking bootlaoders to the best of their ability (although most manufacturers want to offer bootloader unlocking facilities, and it is actually the carriers who object; that sort of low level access gives a greater chance of sim unlocking I guess?).

SifJar said:
Your thread title is about carriers, and yet your post makes no real mention of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whow, you almost sound hostile.
I mentioned Verizon, Cricket AT&T in the second paragraph. And I agree that it's the carriers that don't want an unlocked bootloader. It's a potential profit center for them.
As for the MFG being within their rights to lock access to a device they have sold to me, I disagree. What good is the source tree if I can't compile and install it? As the owner of a device that runs GPL based code they have nothing proprietary to protect by locking the bootloader, or any other part of the device. The eFuse technology wasn't devised or intended specifically to prevent the owner from running whatever they want on the device. It's intent is to protect the device, a network available device, from unwanted tampering, not to prevent the owner from using the device as he or she sees fit. And if the owner is provided the tools it's not an obstacle to it's use. But I feel the carriers and MFG's as well in their lust for those few extra dollars have gone too far.
As for the kernel source being available, I wasn't aware they were. I stand corrected. Still, locking a device to prevent the owner from using it to share his or her internet connection, a connection they have already paid for, is certainly dishonest and possibly illegal. In government parlance it's called "double taxation". It also makes no sense at all. The market contains apps that will share the 4G connection without the carriers proprietary $30 a month product. So, what are they protecting?

kmdub said:
You are wrong for the most part. Basically, you misunderstand the GPL and what it means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you be more specific?
Perhaps it's interpretation?
When the GPL was originally written there weren't any device locks. It was a safe assumption that if you could compile the source you could execute it on your device. Things have changed a bit since then. What value is a source tree if I can't install and run it on the device it's intended to run on? At this point the source is simply a placation to satisfy the "law". What happened to honesty in the market place? What happened to integrity in business?

SifJar said:
Being able to root or unlock bootloader has absolutely nothing to do with GPL. All GPL is is a license on how open source code can be used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?

siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Locking is probably because if
"You want higher android version? Buy our new phones!"
Sent from my Ainol Novo7 Elf using xda premium

What you are asking for - that the carriers/manufacturers ship the phone unlocked so you can e.g. put your own build of the OS onto YOUR phone - makes perfect, reasonable sense.
However, the GPL doesn't cover that, and the carriers are most certainly not reasonable or sensible.
On the positive side, you do have an option: Nexus.

siggmatic said:
And locking the device such that the owner can't install the GPL compiled source tree doesn't effect "how the open source code can be used" or in this case, how it can't? Locking the bootloader or not providing the software that generates correct CDT data for successful flashing most certainly does alter the way the open source code is used. It effectively prevents it from being used. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees that as a GPL violation.
Why lock the device at all? What does the MFG or carrier have to gain by locking the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL doesn't state that the user must be able to use code compiled by themselves, just that the code has to be available so they could compile it themselves. Like it or not, this has nothing to do with GPL I'm afraid.

The carriers want their customers to use the devices buying their services, and don't want to be spending lots on supporting "modified" devices that break. At the end of the day it comes down the the $$$.
If you spend enough with them and don't cost them lots in support calls and device repairs, then I don't think they care really. But they need to set a barrier to prevent any git from accidentally bricking their phone. If you've got the balls and skills to root your phone then one can assume that your also prepared to take responsibility for the action to do that. If you want warranty repair, you need to atleast satisfy the repair agent that it's a fault with the device not the result of rooting and modding their phone and bricking it or damaging it as a result.
With regards to the GPL, I don't think the vendors or carriers are trying to end run it, and from what I've seen and read they are mostly working hard to comply with GPL terms.
If you've got clear evidence of GPL violations, then take that to the copyright holders of the infringed software and let them decide what to do about it. Only they have the right to claim remedies for violations of the license terms.
---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------
The carriers are only interested in making money, and damn the consequences. Customer services is about keeping the customer using their services not keeping the customer happy.
Just be glad for an emimently hackable device running floss, and a SDK that allows easy development of apps to run on it as well. It's better then we've ever had.
Linux and open source software running on a phone - a few years ago people laughed at the idea. Now their buying and enjoying them even if only for the carriers intended purpose.
Linux pervades our lives. I dare say there are more linux kernels running then any other at this point in time.

Related

Is flashing roms legal? Well i went straight to the big guys.

As you all know we all love having our custom roms on our HTC devices, it makes them much faster and has many more applications and content!
But the truth is, is all this legal?
I wanted to hear it out straight from the horses mouth so i went straight to the big guys, Google INCs Android.
Dissapointingly on their website thye have no Contact Us or e-mail so i just browsed about.
What i found out?
I found out that Android is a free, open source Os so any one can come in, get an SDK and develop some apps.
What i didn't find out?
What i did not find out is it flashing or creating roms is legal.
So i went up to the guys who gave Android a try, HTC!
I asked them exactly this:
Is flashing custom Android roms legal on the HTC Hero/HTC Android phones?
This is because Android is a free open soruce fully customisable mobile platfrm created by google INC.
Thank you
They said:, well Terry from HTC said:
Dear Blazr Thank you for your enquiry about Android devices This is how we keep these devices up to date and current. What happens is that google inc release these Roms to us and we make HTC Rom updates from them, so they are 100% legal. If these steps have not helped, please let me know by responding using the link provided and I will be happy to check again for you. Best regards, Terry Snelling HTC customer support team HTC Corp. Global Service Division http://www.htc.com/europe/CA_Hotline.aspx
Then i asked my question again:
No i am asking if flashing UNOFFICAL CUSTOM MADE ROMS are legal, not flashinggoogles, please can you reply
And they said this:
Dear Blazr Thank you for your enquiry about Rom updates If you dont update to rom from www.HTC.com, or your providers website, then this will be a illegal rom and will lose your warranty. If these steps have not helped, please let me know by responding using the link provided and I will be happy to check again for you. Best regards, Terry Snelling HTC customer support team HTC Corp. Global Service Division http://www.htc.com/europe/CA_Hotline.aspx
Well i aint sure if this helped but there you go,
They said that
1 Flashing a rom not from HTC or Google is ILLEGAL
2 And that it will ruin your warranty
So if youre someone who doesn't care but wants the best from his device, like me, then continue supporting custom rom makers.
But if you are someone, like my aint, who LOVES their warranty and hates hacking and 'this nonsense,' they say. Then stick with Android 2.0.
But What do you think,
Thats what i would like to know!
Please respond and give your opiion,
Regards
Sorry if this is long

This is nothing new, we know this for already years. They (MS, HTC, etc.) tolerate it.

Many will argue that as you have paid for the device it is up to you what you do with the device..
I very much doubt flashing a non-official ROM is illegal.. I know of no law that it breaks..

Meekel said:
Many will argue that as you have paid for the device it is up to you what you do with the device..
I very much doubt flashing a non-official ROM is illegal.. I know of no law that it breaks..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the only thing it "breaks" is your warranty.

djn541 said:
I think the only thing it "breaks" is your warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct.. in addition, the email said an "illegal rom" not that it was illegal to flash a rom

Meekel said:
Correct.. in addition, the email said an "illegal rom" not that it was illegal to flash a rom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. In the e-mail and "illegal rom" is a rom that does not originat from google itself, HTC (or other manufacturer), or your carrier. illegal roms, "cooked Roms" are only illegal in the sense that you will void your warranty. Not that you will go to prison.

lol, of course flashing an unoffical Windows Mobile ROM is illegal! From a legal standpoint, cooked ROMs are an intellectual property nightmare! That's why XDA has to remove links to ROM builds when they get a cease and desist letter. Otherwise, they'd go to court and lose the case because M$ is clearly within its rights to request the ROMs be taken down. Now, are you going to be imprisoned because you use a cooked ROM? Of course not. M$ is smart enough to know when not to alienate its best customers. HTC and M$ could take most of the software off this board in an instant due to all that software existing in a copyright gray area which favors them. However, they know when they should respect their enthusiast community and there's a defacto understanding between the device enthusiasts and them.
For Android, the situation's actually a bit different. Most of Android is open source, and licensed under an Apache 2 or a GPL v2 license. Flashing ROMs containing only the open source parts are completely legal (though warranty voiding because they're not from the OEM). However, Google includes some of their own closed source applications like YouTube, GMail, Google Maps, etc. in Android OS, and these cannot be redistributed as they are proprietary to Google. This ensures that only manufactures they approve can make Android devices with full functionality. The classic example of this is when Android ROM cook Cyanogen recieved a C&D letter from Google, because his custom firmware contained these applications and he was not within his legal rights to redistribute them with his ROMs. So, it can get a bit tricky with Android, but the short answer is yes, it's technically illegal to flash full cooked ROMS (i.e. with Google proprietary apps).
However, you shouldn't worry about the police taking you away or finding yourself with a lawsuit just because you flash a cooked ROM. The corporations usually don't mess with their enthusiast community, and usually the worst they do is have the offending software taken down. However, you should keep in mind that the corporations are almost always, in these cases, within their rights to issue a law suit or similar (though they always go for the big-time chefs and not the users, to make a point).

DaveTheTytnIIGuy said:
lol, of course flashing an unoffical Windows Mobile ROM is illegal! From a legal standpoint, cooked ROMs are an intellectual property nightmare! That's why XDA has to remove links to ROM builds when they get a cease and desist letter. Otherwise, they'd go to court and lose the case because M$ is clearly within its rights to request the ROMs be taken down. Now, are you going to be imprisoned because you use a cooked ROM? Of course not. M$ is smart enough to know when not to alienate its best customers. HTC and M$ could take most of the software off this board in an instant due to all that software existing in a copyright gray area which favors them. However, they know when they should respect their enthusiast community and there's a defacto understanding between the device enthusiasts and them.
For Android, the situation's actually a bit different. Most of Android is open source, and licensed under an Apache 2 or a GPL v2 license. Flashing ROMs containing only the open source parts are completely legal (though warranty voiding because they're not from the OEM). However, Google includes some of their own closed source applications like YouTube, GMail, Google Maps, etc. in Android OS, and these cannot be redistributed as they are proprietary to Google. This ensures that only manufactures they approve can make Android devices with full functionality. The classic example of this is when Android ROM cook Cyanogen recieved a C&D letter from Google, because his custom firmware contained these applications and he was not within his legal rights to redistribute them with his ROMs. So, it can get a bit tricky with Android, but the short answer is yes, it's technically illegal to flash full cooked ROMS (i.e. with Google proprietary apps).
However, you shouldn't worry about the police taking you away or finding yourself with a lawsuit just because you flash a cooked ROM. The corporations usually don't mess with their enthusiast community, and usually the worst they do is have the offending software taken down. However, you should keep in mind that the corporations are almost always, in these cases, within their rights to issue a law suit or similar (though they always go for the big-time chefs and not the users, to make a point).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said man, well said. They wouldn't track you down cause you flashed a rom but if some how, what are the likes of this but, a clever police man checked out your phone then we may be introuble. But thats what i a saying cause Modacos rom has google applications in it i think..
Non the less, what they have said is that it is illegal to post custom roms with their applications in it, so its sort of legal to flash your own rom without the need of googles stuff.
djn541 said:
I think the only thing it "breaks" is your warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, if the thing breaks from manufactors defects then i cant return it and have tp pay to get it fixed otherwise i must say hello to insurance, which i aint sure how much it is on the Hero.
Meekel said:
Many will argue that as you have paid for the device it is up to you what you do with the device..
I very much doubt flashing a non-official ROM is illegal.. I know of no law that it breaks..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it just breaks the manufactors agreement but they say its illegal, its like putting CFW on a PSP or Wii.??
Also if you piad 400 of your great british pounds or american bucks then you should be able to do what you like to it, when you like to it, (except be a stupid p!rate)..

blazr said:
True, it just breaks the manufactors agreement but they say its illegal, its like putting CFW on a PSP or Wii.??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disgaree with this statement purely on the fact that in the UK no one has been prosecuted for chipping/modding a games console.
They have only be prosecuted for selling these devices..
I understand your point though..

Meekel said:
I disgaree with this statement purely on the fact that in the UK no one has been prosecuted for chipping/modding a games console.
They have only be prosecuted for selling these devices..
I understand your point though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe not, but I'm fairly sure UK law states that "circumventing protection" is a crime. Flashing a ROM isn't illegal, but HSPL/SSPL is as you're circumventing the protection which prevents you from flashing.
Distributing ROMs is also illegal as you are making/distributing copies of someone else's source code.
So I think that as long as you don't use HSPL/SSPL and don't distribute your ROMs it wouldn't be illegal. But then again, I'm no solicitor (lawyer for you yanks )

Blade0rz said:
Maybe not, but I'm fairly sure UK law states that "circumventing protection" is a crime. Flashing a ROM isn't illegal, but HSPL/SSPL is as you're circumventing the protection which prevents you from flashing.
Distributing ROMs is also illegal as you are making/distributing copies of someone else's source code.
So I think that as long as you don't use HSPL/SSPL and don't distribute your ROMs it wouldn't be illegal. But then again, I'm no solicitor (lawyer for you yanks )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that distributing ROMs is illegal as you would be using IP from whatever company it is therefore would be breaking the law..
Ack, it's a complicated issue ain't it..?

Your very right. Its a very complicated issue as it falls under many categories. And the fact that laws are very different in different countries. This issue can be compared with lots of cases.

I will try to resume it this way:
1) When you purchase an electronic device containing software, you own the hardware, but only are licensing the usage of the provided software. This means you cannot do whatever you want with the device, i.e. you may not reverse engineer the software (at least in most western countries).
2) Flashing offical ROM's, which are provided by the manufacturer to be used by customers are not illegal, or it would be the manufacturer's responsability if he did not license the software for distribution. If the customer bricks the device while flashing it, he way lose warranty.
3) Flashing unofficial ROM's: the legal aspect of it is not concerning the act of flashing, but the question if you are entitled to a valid license of all included software modules. In most cases you are not. Even if you are entitled to the software modules contained in the unoffical ROM, flashing it to the device definitly voids the warranty. The question is: can the manufacturer prove you used an unofficial ROM. In most cases he can't, specially if you flash back to an offical ROM prior to sending the faulty device in.
4) In practical terms: as long as you download the unoffical ROM without spreading it yourself (aka using a P2P client) and as long as you don't offer the unoffical ROM yourself, it is very unlikely that you risk any legal trouble. The reason being that the offense has a very small value compared to the difficulty to actually prove anything. No policeman has the knowledge and authority to check the firmware of your phone...
However, in case of malfunction, the manufacturer can always refuse warranty if he can prove that an unoffical ROM has been flashed to the device. Again, often manufacturers like HTC seem to be pretty customer-friendly. I have a Blue Angel that broke within warranty after I flashed a custom ROM (was conincidence and not the ROM's fault). I got a free repair, but the device was returned with the latest official HTC ROM. Fair enough.
5) What you should be carefull about: take care not to publish (or at least in a traceable way) unofficial firmware containing third party software which has not been licensed, i.e. using a cracked version.
6) Final thoughts: As has been stated here already, I believe that a forum like this one is probably monitored by people from Microsoft and HTC (both companies being the reason for this forum to exist in first place). Because it has been pretty clean and basically providing corrected ROM's to entusiasts, no real harm is done to either company and perhaps even quite the opposite: any problem you experience on an HTC phone, search for a resultion in Google and you end up here. I think this is the best support forum any company could desire, so why make a war against it...
Cheers,
vma

Well said vma

Deffinition of illegal,
1. not according to or authorized by law
2. not sanctioned by official rules
I think in the context we're discussing here #1 does NOT apply, but #2 does.
I don't think any law has been written that makes it a crime to flash a custom ROM to your phone. However according to some "official" rules it is illegal. But when you commit an illegal act that is a violation of rules, it is not punishible by law. No, the punishment is handed down by the manufacturer and that is the voiding of your warranty.
It's hard to commit a truly illegal crime against yourself. Can you steal from yourself? Can you hit yourself in the head and be prosecuted for assault? The only one I can think of is suicide. But have you ever seen the crime of suicide prosecuted? (I'm not talking about assisted suicide here)
Interesting discussion, and just my 2 cents,

@dirkbonn:
Your line of thinking is wrong. I am by no means a lawyer or what so ever, BUT: the flashing of cooked ROM's is illegal because:
1) It required REVERSE ENGINEERING of software to be done. Defined in most countries as illegal.
2) It involves the use of unlicensed software. Defined in most countries as illegal.
3) It involves in many cases the removal of locks imposed by the operator. Again, this is illegal, because you accepted a contract in which you commited to refrain from doing that.
What some people don't seem to understand is: when you purchase the device, it comes with software which you only license for use. You do not own the software. Also, you are only granted to use the provided versions. You cannot assume that you have the right to use a more recent version or a version in another language. The right to decide upon that, belongs to the owner of the intellectual property of the software.
Again, debating about the logic of such laws will not change the law.
To change the law, you need to vote for the right politicians and pressure them to approve laws, you are comfortable with.
In my modest opinion, laws regarding the protection of intellectual property have to quickly be revised, in order to avoid having the whole population commiting offenses and crimes.
Cheers,
vma

Request to HTC
hello everybody. recently I asked HTC about this issue.
Question:
"Dear Sirs and Madams
I wanted to ask you if updating a HTC Touch HD from WM 6.1 to WM 6.5 with a downloaded ROM not from the HTC or Microsoft-Website is illegal or not. For me it is clear that if I do so, I lose my warranty on it, but am I allowed to do so?"
Answer:
"Thank you for contacting us. Installing non official ROM on your devcie will void your warranty . It may also cause problems in funcionality on your device. It is up to you to decide to install any ROM on your device. I trust that this resolves your query, please do not hesitate to contact us again if required."
best regards,
sblubb

Definatly not illegal. Will void your warranty BUT most of the things you get in your warranty are covered by your statutory rights, which you still have.

As an employee of Vodafone UK. I can confirm from a network operators POV, we do NOT refuse warranty exchanges on an Android device that has been rooted or custom ROM'ed as long as the fault is a hardware fault.
This is because Android is open source and it is illegal to try and charge or restrict it.
Windows devices however, we will not do anything if they are not running the stock image. That is because Windows is licensed software that the manufacturers have to pay to use.

Attempts to get CDMA Hero source

So I figured I would document my attempts at getting HTC to release the CDMA Hero kernel source. Hopefully everyone else can document their attempts as well.
Today, 12-30-09, I contacted HTC through email and was in conversation with a gentleman named Tony. He informed me I should call them. I called them and spoke with a gentleman named Fam. After being on the phone for a half hour he informed me that the CDMA kernel was licensed under the Apache license. Obviously this did not make sense so I asked why the GSM kernel would be licensed under GPL and CDMA under Apache. He stumbled over his words, not giving me an answer. He said to check developer.android.com for the information he found but I wasnt able to. I think it's a bunch of BS. Anyone else have better or different experiences?

I emailed them a few days ago & got:
Code:
Dear,
The HTC Customer Service Representative that has been handling your message would like to know if your question has been successfully answered. You can reply to or close your question by visiting:
http://ContactUs.htc.com/wFrmMailLogin.aspx
Ticket Number : [ 09USCW52ENA000753 ]
If you do not respond to or close your question within 15 days, it will be closed automatically.
Sincerely,
HTC
We are unable to receive replies to this email account. Please visit us at www.htc.com if you have any questions or need further assistance.
New Response From [ Mario (North America Support (Tech)) ]
Dear Customer,
Thank you for contacting HTC!
Unfortunately HTC has not released the source code for the CDMA Hero. We have no information on future releases.
We suggest checking our website periodically for updates.
Sincerely,
HTC Support.
Customer Information
Name
Telephone
Email Address
Country United States
Inquiry Information
Inquiry Type Technical Support
Inquiry Description I would like to request the kernel source for the CDMA based Hero. I know the GSM based Hero source has has been released, but I want/need the CDMA based source.
Issue Date & Time
2009/12/23 08:03

chuckhriczko said:
After being on the phone for a half hour he informed me that the CDMA kernel was licensed under the Apache license. Obviously this did not make sense so I asked why the GSM kernel would be licensed under GPL and CDMA under Apache.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Linux kernel is most definitely NOT licensed under the Apache license, obviously. I believe much of Android is, however. Perhaps Tony referred to the kernel by mistake.
In my opinion this is getting rather serious. Code is to be available upon request IMMEDIATELY once a shipping GPL-based binary is out (for sale or otherwise). It is not optional for HTC as it is not their code! They are build a business on the backs of thousands of developers who gave their hard work to Linux in good faith. Apart from this copyright infringement, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of an open source OS, leaving us to hack our phones device-by-device rather than making changes that can benefit everyone.
I have written to them several times before...and I must admit that my most recent contacts have done away with the please's and thank-you's. I think chuckhriczko is right to start documenting our contacts.

Where did all the GSM people send their complaints to?

where do we send these complaints?
I'd like to join in.

surrealbliss said:
where do we send these complaints?
I'd like to join in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HERE

This silly game is pissing me off
If the GSM Hero source is released it makes no sense for the wait. I e-mailed HTC and will post when I receve a reply.

I just e-mailed them with the help from 5tr4t4s comment here (just changed a few words around).
Here is my e-mail to them
I am writing you in an attemt to get the linux kernel that should be available upon request, BY LAW!!!!
I believe much of the Android os is, however the Linux kernel is most definitely NOT licensed under the Apache license.
In my opinion this is getting rather serious. Code is to be available upon request IMMEDIATELY once a shipping GPL-based binary is out (for sale or otherwise). It is not optional for you(HTC) as it is not your code! You are a business built on the backs of thousands of developers who gave their hard work to Linux in good faith. Apart from this copyright infringement, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of an open source OS, leaving us to hack our phones device-by-device rather than making changes that can benefit everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If and when i get a reply i will update with their response.

this is what i got.
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
WTF?!?

justinisyoung said:
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.

gu1dry said:
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah... i was wondering if that guy even read what he linked to. probably googled some random **** and just linked it.

gu1dry said:
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wtf is wrong with them. Its like pulling teeth with these people to get what we paid for

I am not a legal person at all so I'm not going to debate if what they are doing is legal or illegal.
Buuuttt.. i do want to add my opinion. From my experiences with linux and gpl and whatnot.... I think HTC should have the right to keep the portion of code they worked on closed source. Show what they modified but not how exactly they modified it.
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world. I belive you should willingly open your code, but not be legally forced into doing so.
There are plenty of companies out there that release what they use in a very similar fasion, roku and apple to name a few. They don't release the source of the portion they modified but they tell you what they modified.... and post the source of what was modified, *before* the made the changes.
http://www.roku.com/support/gpl_rdvp
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/iphone-312/
unless you're a lawyer.... making claims or demanding something from a big company like this... I belive alot of people will be kind to know that you're probally just talking out your butt. No offence to anyone that stands behind open source.... but I hear alot of backyard courtroom talk like this in my field of work and I just smile and nod the entire time, and take heed no to take anything they say too seriously.
If you make a claim, expecially when it comes to legal stuff, make sure you bring it with the quotes references & citations of where exactly someone is breaking the law.

justinisyoung said:
this is what i got.
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
WTF?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So it looks like they said the same thing to you as they said to me. "Philip" contradicted himself saying that the kernel is HTCs closed source code (which it is not) but then goes on to say that Sprint must release the kernel? If it's closed source why would Sprint have it? Because it's not. I actually went the other route to avoid the Sprint issue. I told the guy I had a Droid Eris and asked for the kernel knowing full well it is the same kernel for both phones. The guy avoided the Sprint issue but still held onto the "closed source" bs. So with that it appears they will never release the source code. If this is the case what legal action could we bring against them. I love HTCs phones but, being a linux guy, it disgusts me how they are trying to benefit from the open source movement but not give back. It's like if Canonical didnt release Ubuntu's source code. It's international law!

If these attempts don't get resolved this could be something the eff might get involved in. Just a thought at least.
http://www.eff.org/
Bnick007

johnsongrantr said:
I am not a legal person at all so I'm not going to debate if what they are doing is legal or illegal.
Buuuttt.. i do want to add my opinion. From my experiences with linux and gpl and whatnot.... I think HTC should have the right to keep the portion of code they worked on closed source. Show what they modified but not how exactly they modified it.
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world. I belive you should willingly open your code, but not be legally forced into doing so.
There are plenty of companies out there that release what they use in a very similar fasion, roku and apple to name a few. They don't release the source of the portion they modified but they tell you what they modified.... and post the source of what was modified, *before* the made the changes.
http://www.roku.com/support/gpl_rdvp
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/iphone-312/
unless you're a lawyer.... making claims or demanding something from a big company like this... I belive alot of people will be kind to know that you're probally just talking out your butt. No offence to anyone that stands behind open source.... but I hear alot of backyard courtroom talk like this in my field of work and I just smile and nod the entire time, and take heed no to take anything they say too seriously.
If you make a claim, expecially when it comes to legal stuff, make sure you bring it with the quotes references & citations of where exactly someone is breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With more commercial OSS licenses such as BSD and Apache. But GPL is a viral license of sorts. If you add to the kernel your derivative work automatically becomes GPL, its designed this way for this very reason.
I'm just speaking about the Kernel.
Basically what you need to ask for is the modifications done to the Kernel that falls under GPL. You are NOT interested in the OS as a whole but just want the kernel source for the CDMA Hero as the GPL dictates.
More info here.

johnsongrantr said:
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what it means, actually. Go read the GPL.

And after some research I'm doing the reference you did not provide, "Go read" isn't really a solid argument. But you are all correct it appears.
"the underlying Linux kernel is licensed under version 2 of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPLv2)"
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
"The GPL is an example of a powerful copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to"
"GPLv1 said that any vendor distributing binaries must also make the human readable source code available under the same licensing terms"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
"the biggest change in version 2 was to introduce a "Liberty or Death" clause - the clause that says if somebody uses a patent or something else to effectively make a program non-free then it cannot be distributed at all"
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript.en.html#liberty-or-death

ok so I wrote HTC and this is what I said, I would like some feedback before I send it, let me know what I should change:
Let me start off by stating that I love the new Hero that I have, You all have done a great job in producing this phone.
Now let me get to the point of this email. HTC chose to make and develop an android phone, when doing this HTC has accepted to the current licensing laws. Now I know that you (HTC) will probably respond that your version of android is licensed under Apache2. Whether or not it is, does not make a difference, as I am not asking for HTC's source of their distribution of android, I am only asking for the kernel source, which falls under the GPL licensing no matter which way you look at it. Let me give you source to look at.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING:
Now in section 2B of the GNU Licensing Terms and Agreements it states:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
Section 3B states when distributing the kernel (which you did when you sold the cellphones) you must:
"Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code"
Now whether or not HTC wants to distribute the kernel source, does not matter; By law you are required to release your KERNEL source. So we (the owners of the CDMA SPRINT HERO) will give HTC ten days before we make this issue publicly known, which could lead to.... Well we all know what it could lead to.
Thank you for your time,
We hope you will make the right decision,
Samuel R. Barthelemy
One of the thousand CDMA HERO OWNERS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

wasupwithuman said:
ok so I wrote HTC and this is what I said, I would like some feedback before I send it, let me know what I should change:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is good man. It is does the whole good cop bad cop thing by being nice yet firm and you let them know within ten days we would do something. Here is the thing though. We need to make sure we do something after ten days if they don't do anything. Can anybody actually make something happen in ten days? Because if we tell them that and nobody does anything and we dont do anything then they will just see these emails as idle threats that simply clog their inbox.

Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights.

Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face shakedown or shutdown
Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face shakedown or shutdown
Last week I read about an Android licensing issue that I wasn't previously aware of. It's a pretty serious one, and it's not that hard to understand. The short version is that
rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;
this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without which Android can't run; and
as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.
At first sight it may appear unthinkable that things could go so wrong with the distribution license for the very foundation Android was built upon. But I did my research and the above conclusions are just consistent with legal positions taken recently by two of the most renowned Free Software organizations -- the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) -- in another context involving GPLv2 (and software embedded in devices), the so-called BusyBox lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 1:09-cv-10155).
Just like those organizations forced a number of companies (most recently Best Buy, previously some others including Cisco and Verizon) to pay up, the situation surrounding most Android OEMs could become quite uncomfortable if any Linux copyright holders driven by greed or other motives team up with copyright lawyers (such as on a contingency basis) and enforce their rights. There are thousands of Linux kernel contributors besides Linus Torvalds. In some cases, it would probably be easy to just replace the code they contributed if they seek to enforce their rights, but in other cases, it would certainly take longer than someone's ability to obtain a preliminary injunction somewhere on this planet.
Click link to look at the legal issue more closely.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html
Does not sound too good...

Sensationalist bull****.

Hmm now thats interesting.

Doesn't this mean the OEM's will have to stick to vanilla android or release their modifications? Or is it not that simple? I read about the apache liscense with google and GPLv2 but im not quite sure I understood that part. Can anyone clearify?
Well from what I got it seems that google aquired motorola with good timing.
EDIT: So the problem with google and the apache license was that they never commented the proper permissions in their code, correct?

No, there ARE no problems with the licensing, and even Linus himself has said there are no issues. The kernel is licensed under GPL, and the kernel code is available. The user space itself is licensed under Apache and Google have no requirement to release the source for ASL code.
This guy is nothing but a huge Android troll and is well known for being so.

Kernel GPL violations
FloatingFatMan said:
No, there ARE no problems with the licensing, and even Linus himself has said there are no issues. The kernel is licensed under GPL, and the kernel code is available. The user space itself is licensed under Apache and Google have no requirement to release the source for ASL code.
This guy is nothing but a huge Android troll and is well known for being so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The general conclusion is right (that is, most major vendors are complying with their GPL requirements, mainly because they aren't modding the kernel, and are - if somewhat reluctantly - releasing the config files). However it's not true for all. A substantial number of smaller manufacturers, often offshore ones, are modding the kernel source and config files and are not releasing the modded kernel source code and config files. Those are clear breaches of their GPL licence, hence those manufacturers are breaching copyright. Anyone selling or distributing those systems is at serious risk (and I for one hope that the Free Software Foundation goes after them soon - they may be offshore, but their business models would break if they were denied access to first-world markets).

So in plan English, What does that mean for consumers???
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

KRAZYADROIDMASTER said:
So in plan English, What does that mean for consumers???
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No more Sense/Touchwiz/OptimusUI?

Oh darn. No TW? That would not bother me at all! Haha. Bit this is sad.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app

I think the manufacturers not complying with the GPL are likely to fold when either the linux or free software foundations lean on them. It'll probably end up with the foundations getting a reasonable amount of money, and the manufacturers having to make sure that they comply (google "Cisco GPL" to see what I'm talking about). As a consumer, if your manufacturer was already complying, it won't make much difference. If they weren't, it will probably mean that a fair few apps that weren't available will become so, and the hardware will be easier to root and probably to mod.

Aren't bootloaders proprietary? I don't think that's under GPL.^

Bootloaders and GPL
alpha-niner64 said:
Aren't bootloaders proprietary? I don't think that's under GPL.^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi alpha-niner; bootloaders haven't been mentioned till now in this thread, so it's a bit of a red herring. But to take the bait: the bootloader itself is almost always proprietary. The manufacturers have no obligation to release it. Of course, unlocking it with a utility provided by the overall system developer (i.e. fastboot) seems likely to be legal unless you specifically agreed not to do so in your purchase agreement, as is completely replacing it with a bootloader that you have a licence for. Disassembling it is clearly illegal. Taking it off the system to mod it and putting the modded version back is probably illegal (the illegal action is making a copy for the purpose of modding rather than backup). On the other hand, in-flash patching of the bootloader doesn't involve copying, so can't breach copyright (it might breach a carefully written licence, I guess). And of course you would then be entitled to back up the patched bootloader. It's the order and direction of actions that's important here.
But more important, you are correct in implying that the problem with some systems lie in the bootloader itself. But the problems with many others lie in "proprietary" mods to the boot kernel and GPLed components of the initramfs, and "proprietary" mods to the running kernel and GNU utilities. They could readily be reversed or adapated if the mod sources were released as per the GPL. Not doing so is a clear GPL breach. These cases are legion.
It's also worth noting that some of the worst offenders are disabling kernel modules and building drivers directly into the kernel. Whatever may be the case with loadable kernel modules, built in drivers are clear derivative works of the kernel, and thus are also subject to the GPL. In many cases, the drivers are for third party components: so the manufacturers not only breached the GPL in these cases, they very probably breached their agreements with the component vendors as well. Vendor X, who supplies manufacturer Y with a component and the proprietary driver for it, is likely to have built in some contract protection against Y's actions leading to their driver becoming GPLed.
Best Wishes
Bob

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit...of ROOT!!

Perhaps upon reading that, you call to mind Thomas Jefferson pulling out his Android to thwart impeding forces. I actually like that idea, but I know that the time in which John Locke wrote the contributing phrase was much different than today. It was a time of change and also a time when people realized their full potential to make a difference. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and in an exercise of my own Personal Liberties, I have started a petition to require cell phone carriers to allow bootloader unlock on any Android device that is not under contract or subsidy. Many of you will know immediately what this means, and the exponential benefits of such a law. Many of you will flip to the next activity complacently believing this does not affect you. If you do not understand, I wish to enlighten you as to how this affects each and every Android user in the world. Signing the petition takes only a few moments of your time and adds to the greater good of our technology and innovation as a Nation.
So what exactly does this “Bootloader Unlock” thing mean?
Well, that is a great question. Most simply put, according to Motorla’s website, “bootloader is a little bit of code that tells your device's operating system how to boot up”. That does not mean much to the average user, I am sure. What it means in my own words is it is a piece of code that dictates what I can and cannot do, in terms of software modification, to my own personal Android device. On my wireless provider whom I will call Big Red, their requirement is that OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers, or simply phone makers) lock this bit of code to prevent modification by the end-user or customer. I am certain, to those that do not wish to modify their devices, this sounds like a good fail-safe to avoid breaking their devices. I am also certain that to those like myself, those who have the experience and knowledge to do things like flash custom firmware or software and modify our devices to suit our own personal taste and needs, this is a huge roadblock and an impediment on what we can do with our own personal property and how it can be improved. In order to modify system files as the user sees fit, a thing called Root is required. Root is, most simply privileged access to a phones file system. A locked bootloader means that in order to gain “Root” access, a security exploit must be found and exploited in order to modify system files. These exploits are literally holes that must be (and typically are) patched in software updates sent out by the service providers or manufacturers to protect the end-user. While the efforts of the security experts are always going to be required to keep us safe and updated, I personally do not want to rely on someone to hack the software so it can be modified. This should be an inherent ability of any user who does not have a subsidy or contract obligation. I also feel that any device that can be updated by the user allows the people who develop for Android to Innovate and push our technology farther forward. When manufacturers are required to lock down a device, ultimately, the user is the one who loses. My first Android device, the Droid 1 or A855 ran an under-volted overclocked kernel (simply another piece of code that tells a device how to boot and how to run its processor among other things) that ran 1.7ghz on it’s ~600mhz processor. I used that phone at least twice as long as I would have if it hadn’t been bootloader unlocked. Also, on the note of the OG Droid, I can say that this was the phone that helped Verizon to compete with the Iphone, bolstering the customer base and creating mass knowledge of the Andoid platform. This was done with a bootloader-unlocked device. It seems that once the market was realized, bootloader locking became the normative. The Droid line has been bootloader-locked ever since. There are several examples of the same hardware being sold, under different names, with the bootloader-unlockable right out of the box. The most recent example of this is the Motorola xt1250, or Moto Maxx (US CDMA). The international version of the same phone, the xt1225 is also bootloader-unlockable. All three are known as the Quark. They are identical in hardware aside from exteriors. Big Red required their version to have the bootloader locked. There is no way to have it unlocked for now.
So Why Would I Want to Sign This Petition?
Honestly, you may not care about Android at all. You could conceivably have never been interested, and care less. However, the technology available to you today is available because of innovations and advancements that have been made across a wide technological array of development. Android is no different. Love that Halo or Heads Up inspired feature ____ manufacturer just put on your new phone? People who develop are to be thanked. The possibilities are endless for what can be done and applied across many platforms. The future of mobile technology can be greatly advanced by creating open access for all who are inclined.
Catharsis
Okay, I admit it. It is really, really unlikely our politicians actually act upon this petition, even if 100,000 signatures are reached. As much as I like to think our law should “fix” things that are wrong, I can agree with one of my favorite developers from back in the day, @adrenalyne, when he said [government typically does not, and should not interfere with private business.] I can agree with that on the same grounds by which I feel we should be granted bootloader unlock on…if and only, if, no one’s rights are infringed upon. I feel it is all of our right to do what we please with our own personal property. There was a great analogy given on XDA Developers forum in the bounty thread where this all started by @Wynnded In essence, it said the carrier provides the highway, the OEM provides the device, but it is the carrier’s highway, so if the carrier requires the OEM to lock it down so be it. Personally, I feel that if the carrier has a highway, it is a toll-road, as I pay for my service. I purchase my vehicle outright, so if I want to modify it, and I pay for my vehicle, making no obligation to said toll operator, it is not within their range of rights to tell me I cannot modify my vehicle in the way I see fit. Thank you for your time. –kitcostantino @ medicbeard on twitter #unlockthedroids
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-not-subsized-or-attatched-contract/QfTmsspy
Original thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/dro...unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958/page115
Sources:
https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bootloader/unlock-your-device-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS)
I ask for no donations, nor anything else. Simply share this if you feel so compelled. Really, it hurts nothing even if you don’t.
#unlockthedroids

Petition to Verizon/FCC to unlock all verizon phone bootloaders that use Block C

Reading around I've found some passing mention of Block C, how bootloaders should be unlocked on it and such because of Open Use terms set by google. I created a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/federal-co...-circumventing-security-ver?just_created=true that although it may not relate completely to XDA in every sense, needs support I feel. An XDA article on the topic may be found here for more information on the subject: http://www.xda-developers.com/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
Thanks in advance for any support, hopefully we can work around having to hack into the thing(s) and just get what we should've gotten all along.
Cheers :fingers-crossed:

Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Question: would a bootloader be considered a "user application" in the sense that an application would be software? Or as firmware does it not extend to that?
BTW, here is a copy of my FCC complaint and text within. If anyone who is reading this has experience in the field and any pointers or arguments I could make that would be great:
For a great majority of phones currently sold by Verizon, many of which utilize Block C of the 700Mhz spectrum, the bootloader is locked. The original terms of Open Access allows for two exceptions only, the second being that the device must comply with other regulations, and the first that limitations may be made for "management or protection of the licensee's network." Locked bootloaders are in violation of Open Access, and thus the response from Verizon is that the allowance of such modification could cause breach in security, and thus such restrictions are necessary for that management. The counterargument to this is in part that phones from outside the network, sold by other manufacturers, as well as some sold through Verizon itself by certain manufacturers do not have any such restrictions. This lack in continuity wholly breaches any argument that security of the network could by improved by locking those devices in such a way that the original terms outweigh those exceptions.
Next comment by me:
Upon receiving reply from the subject of complaint, I have not thusfar been given what I would deem any substantial evidence that it is 1) a method of securing the licensee's network that is reasonable or consistently applied in any effective manner 2) not placing substantial burden on the customer relative to that originally applied by the OEM and 3) that it does not restrict the ability of any consumer to install applications (software, by nature including the operating system and related components) excluding for reasonable network management. This final point is troubling as of yet for the very reason that no specific examples or evidence was given to prove that it is necessary or that any plausible abuse or breach in security of the network may be exclusively performed by an end user with only a device with an unrestricted base firmware
And my last comment as of yet:
Thusfar, I have not yet received any written transcription, summary, or identifiable confirmation of receipt by the fcc from Verizon of the contact over phone that I have had with Verizon over this matter. I still find no reasonable objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restriction placed on these devices. Reasonable network management, as quoted as an exception by Verizon, has not been backed up or supported by any example or feasible hypothetical that a locked bootloader provides, in a direct manner, any noticeable or even quantifiably existent protection to the integrity of the carriers system over that of a phone without the restriction.

dreamwave said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.

Spartan117H3 said:
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.

Also, a major distinction in footnote 502 vs 500:
502: We also note that wireless service providers may continue to use their choice of operating systems, and are not
required to modify their network infrastructure or device-level operating systems to accommodate particular devices
or applications. Device manufacturers and applications developers are free to design their equipment and
applications to work with providers’ network infrastructure and operating systems, and must be given the applicable
parameters as part of the standards provided to third parties.
500: We note that the Copyright Office has granted a three-year exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for “computer programs in the form of firmware that enable
wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” It found
that software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the
software in those handsets. 17 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006). We also note that a court appeal of the exemption
ruling is ongoing.
1st point: a distinction between the operating system, and "firmware" as a "program", and by extension an "application"...but not necessary to argue as it, within 500, notes that "software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers...handsets," and although this exception may have expired the original text acts as a type of precedent that establishes 1. that firmware is independent from the operating system and 2. that its restriction does not conform to "open access" or constitute "reasonable network management"

veedubsky said:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help

dreamwave said:
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.

veedubsky said:
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well

dreamwave said:
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also with all the help here and rescue resources (also knowing that there is that SLIGHT chance to completely brick your phone) you can almost reverse anything... Except some people freak out and first thing they do is call VZW

dreamwave said:
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.

Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.

Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined

dreamwave said:
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
dreamwave said:
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then there's this:
dreamwave said:
To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.

Spartan117H3 said:
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
But then there's this:
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.

dreamwave said:
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.

Spartan117H3 said:
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?

dreamwave said:
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.

Spartan117H3 said:
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it

dreamwave said:
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't they claim something as simple as, a keylogger on a phone from a corporate/military person which would impact Exchange? Dunno. But that could be done with root. Bootloader makes it possible to root phones that aren't usually rootable though.

Database Info

welcome