Assuming that the phone would be loaded with the partially closed-source Cyanogen, are there any official news whether the kernel or the ROM itself would be released as sources so we can get proper open-sourced ROMs going?
nitrobg said:
Assuming that the phone would be loaded with the partially closed-source Cyanogen, are there any official news whether the kernel or the ROM itself would be released as sources so we can get proper open-sourced ROMs going?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is open source...
So you ever saw cm without source?
Even samsung htc and such have to release the sources cause of GPL.
Cheers
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
This is just a wishful thinking. Do you have any official information about that or you are just guessing?
OnePlus One uses a derivative of CM, not an official build.
nitrobg said:
This is just a wishful thinking. Do you have any official information about that or you are just guessing?
OnePlus One uses a derivative of CM, not an official build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont guess. If you know androids nature with Open GPL then you should know that. Try open general puplic licence = open gpl in google search engine then you will receive the detail what this exatly means.
The rom supplier has to release the source or atleast the git hub of its code. Otherewhise he violating the open geneal public licenses of android.
I think this helps you a bit more in understanding the android nature.
Cheers
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
xenix96 said:
I dont guess. If you know androids nature with Open GPL then you should know that. Try open general puplic licence = open gpl in google search engine then you will receive the detail what this exatly means.
The rom supplier has to release the source or atleast the git hub of its code. Otherewhise he violating the open geneal public licenses of android.
I think this helps you a bit more in understanding the android nature.
Cheers
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know its totally irrelevant but in your signature you write "Powerd by Google Jelly Bean 4.4.2 --->DOWNLOAD "
You probably mean kitkat :victory:
xenix96 said:
I dont guess. If you know androids nature with Open GPL then you should know that. Try open general puplic licence = open gpl in google search engine then you will receive the detail what this exatly means.
The rom supplier has to release the source or atleast the git hub of its code. Otherewhise he violating the open geneal public licenses of android.
I think this helps you a bit more in understanding the android nature.
Cheers
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know everything about Android's open source nature and its GPL licensing. I think that you are missing my point here.
Many small companies consider the GPL as voluntary rather than mandatory because there is no legal prosecutions for breaking the GPL license. The company might get frowned upon and some power users / developers would be upset, but generally the end user doesn't care, nor the company does because they won't have to go to the court for breaking the GPL.
This is what most Chinese companies do for their current phones. Samsung, Motorola, HTC also didn't provide full sources until the past 1-2 years. Only Sony and Google's Nexus line were the companies who provided full sources on time.
This being said, only the time will tell if OnePlus would comply the GPL license of its device or will follow the path to ignore the licenses.
KostasR said:
I know its totally irrelevant but in your signature you write "Powerd by Google Jelly Bean 4.4.2 --->DOWNLOAD "
You probably mean kitkat :victory:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol true i forgot to change that ^^ thanks man will do asap when fire up pc
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------
nitrobg said:
I know everything about Android's open source nature and its GPL licensing. I think that you are missing my point here.
Many small companies consider the GPL as voluntary rather than mandatory because there is no legal prosecutions for breaking the GPL license. The company might get frowned upon and some power users / developers would be upset, but generally the end user doesn't care, nor the company does because they won't have to go to the court for breaking the GPL.
This is what most Chinese companies do for their current phones. Samsung, Motorola, HTC also didn't provide full sources until the past 1-2 years. Only Sony and Google's Nexus line were the companies who provided full sources on time.
This being said, only the time will tell if OnePlus would comply the GPL license of its device or will follow the path to ignore the licenses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay i know now what you mean but the kernel they have all to release.
So if you got kernel you can compile from google source the vanilia rom for any device but only if got the knowelege to do that...i failed in this
Cheers
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
IMHO Its probable that rom will be open source but camera app , gallery, messaging app and some others could be closed source just as google does.
The rom and kernel HAVE to be open source. Apps don't. End of story. If they do not release the source, google can sue the holy living hell out of them and make them wish they never stepped up.
ccarr313 said:
The rom and kernel HAVE to be open source. Apps don't. End of story. If they do not release the source, google can sue the holy living hell out of them and make them wish they never stepped up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How many lawsuits for breaking the Android's GPL have you seen?
ccarr313 said:
The rom and kernel HAVE to be open source. Apps don't. End of story. If they do not release the source, google can sue the holy living hell out of them and make them wish they never stepped up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. Only the kernel and small parts of the firmware package have to be open source.
The majority of Android isn't GPL - it's Apache.
Entropy512 is right.
Guys, seriously, everything is explained even on Wikipedia:
The source code for Android is open source. Google publishes most of the code (including network and telephony stacks) under the non-copyleft Apache License version 2.0. which allows modification and redistribution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Licensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
Therefore, the original question by nitrobg is interesting indeed.
Oppo used to give free the sources for their devices, so that should be fine.
Asking this question is relevant because a lot of the chinese companies don't, however that is mostly because of the not so GPL compliant MediaTek.
xenix96 said:
Android is open source...
So you ever saw cm without source?
Even samsung htc and such have to release the sources cause of GPL.
Cheers
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is open source.
Touchwiz and sense are closed source for the same reasons why parts of the OnePlus firmware are closed source.
Related
While I know this might not be the greatest place to put this here, and I'm not trying to start any flame wars, but I figured because this topic implies the bettering of our phones, I thought I should put this here.
With the recent Google affair about not releasing the source code on Honeycomb, how open can we expect Android to be? Technically speaking, the only open thing about Android is the app store, and even that has seen better days.
While some people think that Google is doing this just because they feel like it, I honestly believe that they rushed somewhere and need to patch the hole before more malware-like apps enter the app store and wreak havoc on Honeycomb.
So I leave the question here, what do you guys think about this whole ordeal, and has this effected your views on Google in anyway?
They will release it
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
They have to release it, it is open source.
liorweitz said:
They have to release it, it is open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't if they dont want to!
Go and read up on the Apache Software Licence, which Android is licensed under.
That being said, I fully expect Google to release the source code when they are good and ready.
Regards,
Dave
I also believe that they abuse the term open, anyway.
Sent from my Droid using XDA Premium App
Protocol 7 said:
I also believe that they abuse the term open, anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Openness means, among others, that you can grab sources, close them and release only binaries. Otherwise it would be copyleft, not true openness.
Hy guys and gals, i have done some digging on the nVidia developers forums and have found a thread requesting info on if/when nVidia plans to drop the source for the HAL that we need so our amazing developers can get A2DP working
I'm posting the link below, maybe if enough of us go into the thread requesting this info nVidia will comply
EDIT: nVidia updated their forum and our topic was tossed into the archive and not brought over, to remind them that this is still a valid issue I have re-created the thread, please if you want to try at getting A2DP to work with non OTA based rom's go voice your opinion
New nVidia developers Forum
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using XDA Premium App
Link not working, im all for it a2dp would make cm7 perfect.
This would be great! Then I could finally buy a Bluetooth Stereo Headset.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App
I'd love to see this happen, but I don't see it anytime soon. Nvidia has been historically bad at releasing their source code.
fcisco13 said:
Link not working, im all for it a2dp would make cm7 perfect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Link worked perfectly fine for me, both on my TF101 earlier and just now on my g2x.....not sure why it didn't work for u
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App
Lets get this moving
Sadly, they aren't required by any license to release their source code, which is why I have no idea if/when it'll ever happen. Their drivers for their own chips are definitely not gpl, so bugging them will not put any pressure on them at all.
lawsuit??? Lol worked for lg...
It'll never work. You can't sue them because they won't release their source code. That's like saying "Hey let's sue microsoft because they won't release the source to their kernel." It's their property, and they can do what they like with it. If android didn't run on top of the linux kernel, which is gpl licensed, I'd almost guarantee that no vendor would ever release the source for it.
Not trying to be a buzz-kill or anything, I want the source code as much as anyone else. But no amount of threatening lawsuits, bugging them through email, forums, or phone calls will change their minds. If they intend on releasing the source, they'll do it in their own time, if not, we're SOL.
mstrk242 said:
Sadly, they aren't required by any license to release their source code, which is why I have no idea if/when it'll ever happen. Their drivers for their own chips are definitely not gpl, so bugging them will not put any pressure on them at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then it is probably a bad move to use Nvidia hardware on an open source platform like Android.
Spread the word...
I was kidding about it, we can wait for 2.3.4-5 ota...
It may be Nvidia's right to keep it's code proprietary, but I can't imagine buying another Android device with one of their chips in it unless something changes.
We are evolving very fast, I don't know if nVidia can assume the Windows GPU market will always be there for them. If Android dominates the next decade or so the way that Windows did the last then manufacturers are obviously going to have to adapt or perish.
No way, there will always be a market for high end video cards on windows, simply for gaming if nothing else. Sure, they may not make it in the cell phone market (although I doubt that too, just because they are very good with hardware, they'll work out the kinks.)
You have to remember, the vast majority of people who buy these phones don't even know what a rom is, let alone the fact that they can customize it. The modding community is a small (albeit very vocal,) minority.
Also, please no one read between the lines on these posts I've made. I'm no insider, I have no information what so ever from nvidia. I'm really only basing these educated guesses based on my experience with nvidia and linux drivers. They may very well open the source, but I'm just trying to say don't hold your breath, and screaming at nvidia is absolutely pointless.
bump for updated link
None of the companies release their proprietary drivers to the public. It is their right as the intellectual property owner to keep it secret. The only thing that is open source is the Android Kernel and the AOSP files. Everything else is proprietary and not made public. Even Google Apps are proprietary and Google never releases the source code for them. Also, only members of the Open Handset Alliance can license them and legally put them into their rom builds. Any efforts contrary to this (i.e., getting companies to release proprietary driver source) is simply futile and a waste of time. They could care a rat's ass about hackers. If you don't like it don't buy their products, but then you have to stop buying everyone's product as they all have proprietary code that is never released.
Spyvie said:
Then it is probably a bad move to use Nvidia hardware on an open source platform like Android.
Spread the word...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right-on here. I will be looking at this when I eventually upgrade down the road, and will probably select a lesser device with different hardware (as long as the manufacturer doesn't ship it with a locked bootloader - lol).
Real open source is the only way to go. But as many posters have mentioned. we represent a very small group of potential customers - most whom would never dream of messing around with their devices.
gaww said:
You are right-on here. I will be looking at this when I eventually upgrade down the road, and will probably select a lesser device with different hardware (as long as the manufacturer doesn't ship it with a locked bootloader - lol).
Real open source is the only way to go. But as many posters have mentioned. we represent a very small group of potential customers - most whom would never dream of messing around with their devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you want to get the MI Millet MIUI phone when it is available in your country. It is a dual core 1.5Ghz Scorpion processor and they expect you to update it weekly with new MIUI builds. It is an awesome device for the low price point (1,999 Chinese Yuan or about $300.00 US).
http://product.xiaomi.com/features.html
Go salivate.
jboxer said:
None of the companies release their proprietary drivers to the public. It is their right as the intellectual property owner to keep it secret. The only thing that is open source is the Android Kernel and the AOSP files. Everything else is proprietary and not made public. Even Google Apps are proprietary and Google never releases the source code for them. Also, only members of the Open Handset Alliance can license them and legally put them into their rom builds. Any efforts contrary to this (i.e., getting companies to release proprietary driver source) is simply futile and a waste of time. They could care a rat's ass about hackers. If you don't like it don't buy their products, but then you have to stop buying everyone's product as they all have proprietary code that is never released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not refuting what your saying but why do other phones seem to not have this problem if they all do this. Only tegra 2 devices have development ****ed because of this.
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
They deleted my account. WTF?
xsteven77x said:
Not refuting what your saying but why do other phones seem to not have this problem if they all do this. Only tegra 2 devices have development ****ed because of this.
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd imagine its for the same reason our devices and other tegra devices can only play the tegra games hence incentive tobuy a tegra phone. I think if they released code then any dev could hack their phone and play tegra games without having a tegra chip. Just a hunch.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA App
We need to bomb HTC's website with comments to encourage them to release the kernel source code for our device. I suggest we all go to the following link daily and request its release;
http://htcdev.com/contact
HTC just sent me a link to take a survey, another good tool to blast them with.
http://survey.htc.com/worldwide
Code has been released, I like to think all our complaints helped. Feel free to lock this thread if need be!
http://www.htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads
We have been. I've sent them several notices on a near daily basis.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using xda premium
I doubt that that link is anything more than a placebo.
http://www.htc.com/us/about/contact-by-email
Say something along the lines of "you're in violation of GPLv2 which requires that source be released along with binary. GPLv2 does not allow for anything besides release of source NOT being ANY LATER than binary distribution."
I.e., though GPLv2 doesn't specify an exact time frame, the implication of this is that the source must be made available by the EXACT MOMENT that the binary is distributed. It *does* allow for the source to be released BEFORE the binary, but does NOT allow for the binary to be released before the source.
IMO, the kernel source archive should be included within the system partition of the phone, at least for early releases while there is sufficient storage space for it all to fit. This would greatly simply source distribution.
Even though I went to that page and asked for the kernel source code to be released, it looks like they're on a pretty routine schedule as far as what and when they release things and we're probably still a little ways out on the source code. But it can't HURT to keep trying, right?
Submitted. Hopefully they'll listen up.
BiggJurk said:
We need to bomb HTC's website with comments to encourage them to release the kernel source code for our device. I suggest we all go to the following link daily and request its release;
http://htcdev.com/contact
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, we have been. As unclespoon said they are on a fairly set release schedule that they must be comfortable with [legal-wise].
Read my replies here, there is another link that got me a response that was from a human:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1247374
HTC does this **** on purpose. They have a bunch of new devices coming out and if they were to release the code that would impact there profit margins. This processor can handle 1.5 ghz as a daily driver. The new HTC amaze has exact same processor but is overclocked 300mhz more then our device. And it has a 1gb of RAM. Samsung has gotten great at releasing there code within 1 week or even earlier. HTC PLEASE TAKE NOTES FROM SAMSUNG.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using xda premium
FYI
I filled out a customer service survey from HTC and gave them all bad ratings in regards to their non-response for the kernel source code. A representative just personally called me and is trying to get an eta on the release if not email me a copy of the code. I would suggest everyone completes a survey with negative comments at the following location:http://survey.htc.com/worldwide. I know surveys like this affects their metrics and gets managements attention. The guy on the phone also said that Android is released under the Apache license agreement.
Regards,
Filled out the survey.
Let's see if they respond.
cal3thousand said:
Filled out the survey.
Let's see if they respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it took them 2 weeks to get back to me.
BiggJurk said:
I think it took them 2 weeks to get back to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is that they'll "get back to you" in a month or however long until they would have normally released the source code. I think they're too big to be bothered by people complaining about lack of source code. Bottom line is there probably won't ever be any "consequences" as a result of them taking their time on releasing kernel source. We only complain because we want it, but it's not like they are really doing anything wrong by just releasing it on their own schedule.
BiggJurk said:
The guy on the phone also said that Android is released under the Apache license agreement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard that before, but I don't see how that's possible since Android is based on Linux. If it were based on BSD that'd be another matter.
BiggJurk said:
The guy on the phone also said that Android is released under the Apache license agreement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, congrats to phone guy!! Unfortunately, either he was trying to get you to shut-up or misunderstood what you wanted them to release. Google mostly licensed Android with the Apache 2.0. This allows others to customize Android and they don't have to release their changes i.e. customizations made by phone manufacturers (it means other things too but this was Google's main reason for this license). HTC doesn't have to give us their Android source. The Linux kernel is GPL - there is no way around that. The GPL states that the source must be released at the same time as the binary is released to the end-user (it even states that the source should be no harder to obtain than the binary is i.e. we should get the kernel source with our devices - on the sd card or something). Still have no idea where HTC gets 90-120 days from the GPL wording.
I sent a note to EFF asking if they were aware of whats going on. They said they were and were researching the situation.
---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------
unclespoon said:
but it's not like they are really doing anything wrong by just releasing it on their own schedule.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are though. They are directly violating the GNU GPL but you are right - there are too few of us who actually want the kernel source for them to really worry. Can't believe one of the actual Linux kernel devs hasn't caught wind of this and made a statement.
I sent a couple of requests. Let's hope they move their asses.
Source has been released:
http://www.htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads
HebrewToYou said:
Source has been released:
http://www.htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you were the first one to find it. I thanked you elsewhere you've mentioned it as well.
Maybe the OP can come through and update the thread title.
Edit to add - download reads 94.0MB on the HTC page, but my download over Tmo 4g is saying out of 89.6MB and my home pc is saying 89.7MB...so we'll see what's up when I get it.
YES!!! Time to OC this bad boy..
Please get on it Devs..!!!
RazoE said:
YES!!! Time to OC this bad boy..
Please get on it Devs..!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All ready on it
Sent from my Senseless Doubleshot using xda premium
That's funny.
I just received the HTC reply to my request. I'm going to play like my request was the straw for that camel's back... Your Welcome Everybody!!!
j/k. This is wonderful news though. I'm stoked
Thread locked by OP request
The announcement of the O2x receiving an ISC OTA in the 2nd quarter ( anyone really believe that ) will probably be the end of support for our phones . Well this is my last stand to get the source to our devs please join her just copy #Releasethesource and paste here
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=334420639902596
Update I've been blocked from leaving comments
Thanks guys
Release source from nvidia? Sorry, but won't happen. They already said they wouldn't be part of open source, but if the O2X gets ICS, we get it too (by porting and whatnot).
Sent from my amazing LG G2x running Bionix Reloaded v1.4.1
It hurts to try I guess...
newnoobkid said:
The announcement of the O2x receiving an ISC OTA in the 2nd quarter ( anyone really believe that ) will probably be the end of support for our phones . Well this is my last stand to get the source to our devs please join her just copy #Releasethesource and paste here
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=334420639902596
Update I've been blocked from leaving comments
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that's because you spammed them with too many comments
newnoobkid said:
It hurts to try I guess...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
don't you mean it doesn't hurt to try?
and no it doesn't, but like stated above, nvidia won't release their source code, no matter how much we ask
The only method that may work is for a company which litigates against NVIDIA for patent or intellectual property infringement. The litigation may force disclosure of source code but, if it does, the documents will probably be sealed by the court so that only the litigant(s) will have access.
Core Memory said:
The only method that may work is for a company which litigates against NVIDIA for patent or intellectual property infringement. The litigation may force disclosure of source code but, if it does, the documents will probably be sealed by the court so that only the litigant(s) will have access.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you talking bout Willis?
newnoobkid said:
What you talking bout Willis?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reread it, makes perfect sense.
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
newnoobkid said:
What you talking bout Willis?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Basically, say a partner of LG can't get a part to work with the G3x, and its because they dont have access to drivers. They go to court with nvidia, nvidia shares source code with said company, and that's where it ends. Said company wouldn't be allowed to share with the public, unless granted permission by nvidia, which WON'T happen.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA
Or Google could bring litigation against nvidia or better yet LG. Since nvidia said it would be LG that would release the HAL and that they shouldn't. For violating open source.
r.snyder said:
Or Google could bring litigation against nvidia or better yet LG. Since nvidia said it would be LG that would release the HAL and that they shouldn't. For violating open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So who should I beg?
newnoobkid said:
So who should I beg?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently no one. Nvidia/LG want the benefits of open source but want to keep anything nvidia makes proprietary.
Anyone feel like explaining how the whole binary blob thing bypasses open source rules?
Sent from my LG-P999
newnoobkid said:
So who should I beg?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just stop trying, its not gonna work. Understand that.
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA
OK HTC ITS BEEN 90 DAYS, YOU KEEP SAYING YOUR SORRY FOR A CRAPPY PHONE HOW ABOUT YOU REDEEM YOURSELVES AND RELEASE THE DAMN SOURCE CODE NOW?
im just saying....
Patience. They can't release until its been 90 days since ota. Now that it has been 90 days they can but it doesn't mean they will. They can wait however long they desire. All I know is were getting closer.
Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt
ang1dust said:
OK HTC ITS BEEN 90 DAYS, YOU KEEP SAYING YOUR SORRY FOR A CRAPPY PHONE HOW ABOUT YOU REDEEM YOURSELVES AND RELEASE THE DAMN SOURCE CODE NOW?
im just saying....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will be OK there Catwoman.
Sent from my Infected HTC Rezound using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Its 90-120 days people.....
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
Its 90-120 days people.....
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have 45 more days. They will drop the source. But when the update went out they said 45 days to complete. Add that to the 90 by law.
Sent from my ConD3m3dPaC-man ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
People, there is no 90-day "rule". Why do people keep repeating this like it's a fact ?
hallstevenson said:
People, there is no 90-day "rule". Why do people keep repeating this like it's a fact ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the point is HTC is trying to position themselves as "developer friendly". I'm not sure what the rules are, but it seems pretty unfriendly for them to withhold the code for this long. If they want to be seen as developer friendly, let them start releasing code for all devices at the same time as the OTA, or at least within a couple weeks. I can see them pointing fingers at Verizon for months of delay on the OTA, but delaying the release of the source code is on HTC. It just seems mean spirited as well.
If HTC really wants to indicate they are sorry for how Thunderbolt issues have been handled, they should release the source code.
hallstevenson said:
People, there is no 90-day "rule". Why do people keep repeating this like it's a fact ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC is the one that stated that they can wait anywhere for 90-120 days to release their source code to ensure it is of the utmost quality. So all this repetition of it is merely because they made that statement. In response to the other quote about them about adding another 45 days because of the second update. I don't think that they will reset since the second update didn't do anything to the kernel at all.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
HTC is the one that stated that they can wait anywhere for 90-120 days to release their source code to ensure it is of the utmost quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They clearly don't give a sh*t about the GPL as it doesn't allow 90 days or 120 days and that's all that really matters. When they say they can wait any period of time, they're effectively telling people "we'll do it if we feel like it".
Source will be available when HTC decides to publish it. Counting down the supposed days until release won't accomplish anything, nor will creating threads like this one and beating the topic to death. If one wants source, he or she would be better served by harassing HTC on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc... Source will eventually be released though, that is certain...
Go to the link in this thread and ask them directly.
http://www.forums.infectedrom.com/showthread.php?p=74402
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
There is no 90 day rule. The GPL requires release of source at the same time the binary is distributed, no ifs, ands, buts.
One of these days, a kernel developer (i.e. someone who holds copyright on part of the kernel) is going to sue them, win, and they will never be able to use the kernel again, per the terms of the GPL. HTC is playing with fire, since a significant part of their business requires use of the Linux kernel.
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
The GPL provides NO mechanism to regain those lost rights.
The kernel for the thunderbolt contains proprietary information that relates to the svdo technology therefore they can wait.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
The kernel for the thunderbolt contains proprietary information that relates to the svdo technology therefore they can wait.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, they can't. You obviously haven't read, or don't understand, GPL2. If they modified the kernel, or linked to it for "the svdo technology," they still have to release it, and that code is not proprietary, but also falls under GPL2.
"when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Some light GPL reading and an explanation about the "free" parts of Android and the "non-free" parts.
Check it out!
Excerpt from the article:
Important firmware or drivers are generally proprietary also. These handle the phone network radio, WiFi, bluetooth, GPS, 3D graphics, the camera, the speaker, and in some cases the microphone too.
On some models, a few of these drivers are free, and there are some that you can do without—but you can't do without the microphone or the phone network radio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mike.s said:
No, they can't. You obviously haven't read, or don't understand, GPL2. If they modified the kernel, or linked to it for "the svdo technology," they still have to release it, and that code is not proprietary, but also falls under GPL2.
"when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The code related to svdo is a non free part. You will notice that the rezound also suffers from the same waiting period as the bolt since it to has svdo.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
The code related to svdo is a non free part. You will notice that the rezound also suffers from the same waiting period as the bolt since it to has svdo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what? It may make a difference to what developers are able to do with it (e.g. kernel without the proprietaries doesn't allow a working system to be created), but it doesn't in any way remove their obligation to release the kernel source at the same time they release the kernel binary.
And, I'll admit I don't know how the kernel and the svdo stuff interact. But basically, if it's linked to the kernel (vs. working in userspace), then it's not non-free, as it is required to be released under GPL.
mike.s said:
So what? It may make a difference to what developers are able to do with it (e.g. kernel without the proprietaries doesn't allow a working system to be created), but it doesn't in any way remove their obligation to release the kernel source at the same time they release the kernel binary.
And, I'll admit I don't know how the kernel and the svdo stuff interact. But basically, if it's linked to the kernel (vs. working in userspace), then it's not non-free, as it is required to be released under GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sue them then and quit *****ing because they wait 90 days to release source code. Since you obviously know more about the gpl than those of us who work with the stuff then you should even take the lead and make the case for the rest of us. Radio technology is in the kernel or else the antennas wouldn't work. Since this device has svdo technology that is proprietary to Verizon and HTC then yea I would have to say that is a non free license. At any rate go file complaints with HTC and the gpl. It has already been don and it won't do you any good. Have fun with that.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
Sue them then and quit *****ing because they wait 90 days to release source code. Since you obviously know more about the gpl than those of us who work with the stuff then you should even take the lead and make the case for the rest of us. Radio technology is in the kernel or else the antennas wouldn't work. Since this device has svdo technology that is proprietary to Verizon and HTC then yea I would have to say that is a non free license. At any rate go file complaints with HTC and the gpl. It has already been don and it won't do you any good. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For someone who works with "the stuff," you're pretty clueless as to how it works. Maybe you should lay off "the stuff" for a while.
mike.s said:
For someone who works with "the stuff," you're pretty clueless as to how it works. Maybe you should lay off "the stuff" for a while.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever you say chief. I'm guessing you've compiled some kernels and looked through kernel source. I guess we should take your lead and just whine about it the same thing that has plagued the bolt since day one some more just like you seem to do. Quit worrying about the day that kernel source drops and let those that are actually going to do something with the source do the worrying. You clearly don't understand that there is proprietary code in the thunderbolt source code which allows HTC to take their time with the release. I suppose you know that since you are so well versed in kernel source code though....
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2