Related
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.
Since HTC has not yet provided the source code for the updated kernel (2.6.29-bc0d2cff) that ships with the 2.1 update, I'm putting up this thread to document my requests that they provide it. Once again, they're giving me the run-around.
Request 10USCW22ENA001190
Per the terms of the HTC Legal Agreement on my HTC CDMA (Sprint) Hero, Section 4 (End User License Agreement), I am formally requesting the source code for the Linux kernel 2.6.29 as installed on my phone. I have installed the recent Android 2.1 upgrade, and it does not appear that HTC has published the required source code yet.
As the Linux kernel is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), anyone distributing this software must also provide the source code used to compile the software. Any delay in doing so is a violation of copyright.
The specific version of the software being distributed in the HTC Hero (Sprint) Android 2.1 update is as follows:
Kernel version:
2.6.29-bc0d2cff
[email protected] #1
Thank you for taking the time to post this source code, and making sure that HTC is fulfilling its open-source (and copyright law) obligations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First reply from Philip (North America Support (Tech))
Hello Chris, Thank you for taking the time to write us. I understand that you need the source code for the 2.1 version of the Sprint Hero. Rather than getting into a semantics debate of the device being under the Apache License or the GPL, I will just state the facts as they are. The department that you are in contact with is HTC Technical Support; we do not have any part of posting the source code, nor do we have information as to when it will be posted. However, when the source code is available you will be able to find it at developer.htc.com. Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us again. You can find additional support at support forums at community.htc.com. There is also a customer satisfaction survey for you to take if you are interested. Philip HTC Technical Support www.htc.com www.twitter.com/htc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and my response:
There is NO issue of "semantics" regarding the licensing and source code request I made. The Android platform is licensed under the Apache Software License, while the Linux kernel that the phone runs on is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). I made a very specific request for the Linux kernel source code, which is unarguably licensed via the GPL.
This is very clearly documented in HTC's Legal Documents bundled with the phone. Also clearly documented is the fact that this is the department I am to contact in order to be provided with the source code. Please read the Legal Documents bundled with the HTC Hero (Sprint), consult with a Supervisor, and let me know whether or not HTC will be complying with their End-User License Agreement. If the terms of the End-User License Agreement differ from what is provided with the phone, I would like a copy of the new document.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"
Nice dude!
Way to push them using their own EULA.
I look forward to seeing how this unfolds
Legal department would probably respond better to pressure.
18. Notices. HTC may give you all notices (including legal process) that HTC is required to give by any lawful method, including by posting notice on the Site or by sending it to any email or mailing address that you provide to HTC. You agree to keep your email and mailing addresses current and to check for notices posted on the Site. You agree to send HTC notice by mailing it to HTC’s “Address for Legal Notices” which is:
HTC Corporation
No. 23 Xing-Hua Rd.
330 Taoyuan City
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Attn: Legal Department
With a copy to:
HTC America, Inc.
13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98005
Attn: Legal Department
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My original response to this thread was going to be "not another thread like this...", but then I read your replies to them. I like how you're handling it so far and how you're using their own rules against them
Welcome to round 2 everybody! Hope it doesn't take as long as it did last time. How bout we send them a transcript of the last kernel request thread.
I am glad to see this going again. Like Mrbiggz said, maybe it wont take as long this time.
They released the Eris source like a week after 2.1 was pushed out to their phones.
Wonder why the delay.
-------------------------------------
Sent from my Android phone.
Prolly cause they are pissed about last time. We were relentless and now they want to make us pay for it. LOLOL
cmccracken said:
For what its worth, the Legal Documents I am referring to can be accessed by visiting "Menu"->"Settings"->"About phone"->"Legal information"->"HTC legal"->"4. End user License Agreement"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...
jporter12 said:
After a quick look there, you may also want to send your request to "customer service" as that's where they state to contact in my phone. I'm running a 2.1 rom (Fresh) and don't know if that info varies any or not. At any rate, a good support person would have "not gotten into the semantics of it" and given you this information, or looked into it further and let you know that. I'm not sure if contacting CS would get you any further or not...
FAIL on the part of this HTC support person...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.
I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.
fortune82 said:
I love this. Their own legal team is leading to their downfall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't take full credit for this approach. The last go-around, I repeatedly had a member of the Google Android team suggest that I "read the legal docs" on the phone. I think I finally caught what he was saying between the lines.
In reality the haven't released the code to us because there is a giant sectionof comment in the kernel source that says. and I qoute - "... this line of code is horribly written and would allow for a buffer over run kernel exploit for elivated privledges (i.e. ROOT/TOOR) if a hacker happens to notice the null pointer called *thisIsNotAnExploitLoopHole ..." It then goes on to show the code that can be used to exploit it, but that got lengthy.
@OP, very well put. Let's hope for a 2.1 Kernal release very soon.
Well looks like its going to be another battle with them to get this out, I'm in again and will post the responses that I revive.
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App
We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.
cmccracken said:
I did go to "Customer Service". Their "E-mail Support" option is the same place as the Tech Support system. Apparently the rep doesn't know what his job is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha. Something I did not know about that made me look like a total newb... Oh wait, I AM newbsauce!
I'm with Kcarpenter in that they wouldn't want to let it out now to give the devs here access to an exploit that woudl give us root!
ricersniper said:
We need to start a pool and see how long it takes. I bet at least a month based on the fact that sprint some how will slow down the process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see it happening until after it's rooted.
Hi folks,
I am interested in developing for the Binatone iDect iHome, a very little know home phone with Android on it.
I emailed Binatone asking for the source code but the response I got was:
'The Android operating system is developed by Google. You would need to contact them with any questions about they system.'
Where do I stand, what can I say to them to make them comply with the GPL? What happens if they refuse to release it, is there a section of UK law that can be applied?
Please, if anyone could give me any pointers I would really appreciate it!
Does anyone have any ideas on what to do when a company does not adhere to the GPL?
vinokirk said:
Hi folks,
I am interested in developing for the Binatone iDect iHome, a very little know home phone with Android on it.
I emailed Binatone asking for the source code but the response I got was:
'The Android operating system is developed by Google. You would need to contact them with any questions about they system.'
Where do I stand, what can I say to them to make them comply with the GPL? What happens if they refuse to release it, is there a section of UK law that can be applied?
Please, if anyone could give me any pointers I would really appreciate it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The OS itself is open source, that does not mean the kernel has to be open source, nor do they really have to provide you any support. I think they were perhaps thinking that you wanted the OS source?
I'm not too sure of the specifics. All I know is that if a company uses Android on their device they have to release the source code for it.
When I had my Dell Streak, there was a big 'fight' with Dell as they hadn't released the source code. But they eventually released it, and now its available here:
http://opensource.dell.com/releases/streak/
So what source code does a company have to release to comply with the GPL?
Anyone have any ideas what to do here?
I was under the impression that Android is published under the GPL.
The likes of Samsung and Dell etc all publish their source code.
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
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.