Database Info

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. Kudos to you

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.

{Everyone} Help Fight For Unlocked Bootloaders

Finally today i had enough... I filed a formal complaint with the FTC against motorola and all other mobile device manufacturers out lining the cause and effect of these companies selling us devices that we are made to be only users of rather than owners and administrators the devices we purchased. Nothing will change until we make some one step in and set the rules, i am encouraging everyone here on xda to do the same ... here is a link to the example complaint i filed and the link to the appropriate form to be filed
http://t0dbld.blogspot.com/2011/03/m...otloaders.html
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.go...d.aspx?Lang=en

Here's some more food for though concerning smartphone security:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/carrier-intransigence-harms-internet-security
Perhaps we can spin our complaint with this in mind.
Basically since smartphones are essentially computers, I feel we should insist on being able to do what we want with them - Dell, HP, etc can't object when I choose to replace Windows on my PC with Linux, neither should Moto, HTC, etc be able to determine what we can and cannot run.
Also, if my phone has HDMI out, I can easily envision using it as a media player long after it's served its time as a phone.

IMO, people would be far better off signing this petition which will be presented to Motorola to try and persuade them to change their bootloader policies as they have previously promised to do.
It is a direct request to the one organisation who can change the matters for the better - Motorola themselves.
And unlike this thread, it doesn't rely upon subjective argument of entitlement.

Step666 said:
IMO, people would be far better off signing this petition which will be presented to Motorola to try and persuade them to change their bootloader policies as they have previously promised to do.
It is a direct request to the one organisation who can change the matters for the better - Motorola themselves.
And unlike this thread, it doesn't rely upon subjective argument of entitlement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first of all is there any harm in both ? secondly i respectfully disagree, some one needs to be put in charge of these things and so far the only thing that governs tech is law suits, as noted above HP did loose to FTC when they tried to deny people from not using windows on there machines, also petitions although the preferred method of hippies and college students do not hold there weight in most courts, i do know from personal exp. as if you really wish i can show you my supreme court case in the state of Michigan and yes years prior we started with a neighborhood petition that didn't even hold up in the local commissions and courts. either way i have signed said petition but i feel that if we get the FTC involved it will help the Petition as eyes will be upon it.... ALSO please keep in mind this is not just motorola they just happen to be better than other companies, jsut like computers we should not have to hack anything for administrator privileges, or to wipe the device and load are own software

But on what grounds would the FTC uphold your complaint?
Just because jailbreaking etc is not illegal, that doesn't give you a right to be able to install custom ROMs onto your handset, nor does it automatically make the measures that companies like Motorola take to prevent modification of their handsets illegal.
You say that the FTC ruled against HP for preventing laptop owners from installing Linux - how come when I Google 'FTC HP Linux', I find nothing relating to that?

Step666 said:
But on what grounds would the FTC uphold your complaint?
Just because jailbreaking etc is not illegal, that doesn't give you a right to be able to install custom ROMs onto your handset, nor does it automatically make the measures that companies like Motorola take to prevent modification of their handsets illegal.
You say that the FTC ruled against HP for preventing laptop owners from installing Linux - how come when I Google 'FTC HP Linux', I find nothing relating to that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is not about jail breaking and if you make it about such it will not get looked at, this is about being sold a device that we are not given administrative right to or the ability to wipe and install any software we want on it.... You wouldn't stand for this on your home pc would you ?
Because the ruling was not about linux, it was about being forced to have windows and paying for the licensing, it became much bigger than just hp as well but it is there including the end results of hp having to offer it with out windows and to refund people's money that did not agree to windows terms and returned the license

t0dbld said:
this is about being sold a device that we are not given administrative right to or the ability to wipe and install any software we want on it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, ok, fine.
But that detail aside, my question still remains unanswered - why would they rule in your favour on that basis?
In what way are you entitled to be able to completely wipe your phone and install whatever you want onto it?
t0dbld said:
Because the ruling was not about linux, it was about being forced to have windows and paying for the licensing, it became much bigger than just hp as well but it is there including the end results of hp having to offer it with out windows and to refund people's money that did not agree to windows terms and returned the license
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's different then - it's one thing for HP to force customers to pay the licence fee for a copy of Windows they don't need/want but no-one is being forced to pay for an Android licence here, Motorola et al's practices are not costing the end user money.
I'm just trying to understand why you believe the FTC would consider your complaint, let alone side against the manufacturers.

look dude your still not getting it and thats ok, do it or dont, try to help or dont, have a good day

only a matter of time b4 these guys realize locked bootloaders dont help any1..

10 Days Remain To Jailbreak

http://gizmodo.com/5880930/only-ten-days-remain-to-keep-jailbreaking-legal
Thoughts? First I've heard of the issue coming back up.

http://www.xda-developers.com/featu...ilbreaking-will-expire-eff-wants-to-renew-it/
Identical topics are identical.

Well if you jailbreak it now, you can keep it jailbroken after without being illegal. Prospectivity is a great thing
Sent from my Sensation using XDA App

its my device. i deserve the right to do what i want with it. i believe in a person's right to try possibly stupid things as long as it doesn't deny another of their rights. rooting doesn't deny anyone anything. therefore i don't see any good reason why it should be illegal.

According to the thread title we can forget all about this since it's never gonna happen

Surely it can't apply to open source such as android but only closed source such as ios wp7 etcetera?
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk

Yeah that

thezombiehunter said:
its my device. i deserve the right to do what i want with it. i believe in a person's right to try possibly stupid things as long as it doesn't deny another of their rights. rooting doesn't deny anyone anything. therefore i don't see any good reason why it should be illegal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMEN
-Tyler Debel

Btw, my iPhone, my ipod touch is MY DEVICE. I don't give a **** to what they want.. do what you want with your device but don't anoye me

I never get anything like this... Its your device, you bought it so you should be able to do whatever you want with it... I hope it doesn't go through cuz that would be freggin stupid.
.

It will never pass, but if it does, then I'd just download new roms and rooting tools through TOR browser. I mean, Its my phone I bought it, I can do what I want. I am paying AT&T to let them wet their beaks, they should be content.

Danmanlott said:
It will never pass, but if it does, then I'd just download new roms and rooting tools through TOR browser. I mean, Its my phone I bought it, I can do what I want. I am paying AT&T to let them wet their beaks, they should be content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your right the phone is yours but your only licencing to use the software. There is a huge difference.

I don't see any reason why this won't get extended. Jailbreaking's kind of 'a thing' culturally, imo.

JerleMinara said:
I don't see any reason why this won't get extended. Jailbreaking's kind of 'a thing' culturally, imo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apple likes complete controls and by the terms you agree to it does technically break the tos we all agree to when use an OS. Just because its popular doesn't make it legal. While some OS do look the other way apple will not. Never have and never will

And that is why apple has earned the ire of many geeks and nerds of this generation. They are as reviled as Microsoft was, a decade before. They'll learn once those who they depend on for support, i.e. their customers, abandon them. Some sooner, some later, some never, but they will feel pain in the only place it counts, their pocketbook. Perhaps then, they can reevaluate their attitude toward their customers and the public in general.

zelendel said:
Your right the phone is yours but your only licencing to use the software. There is a huge difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL says you can do whatever the hell you want as long as you post the source code if you distribute it. There's no legal grounds for legally blocking rooting Android devices, but Apple would be pleased as punch to have iOS jailbreaking become a violation of the DMCA again.

synaesthetic said:
GPL says you can do whatever the hell you want as long as you post the source code if you distribute it. There's no legal grounds for legally blocking rooting Android devices, but Apple would be pleased as punch to have iOS jailbreaking become a violation of the DMCA again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL only covers the kernel not the OS

Can you flash Android on any device and sell it legally?

Having an argument with a friend, please settle this for us.
Would it be legal for a firm X to buy device Y, flash stock Android and GAPPs on it and then re-sell it? I've been looking for a related read on Google and elsewhere with little to no luck. if you can't be arsed getting into the specifics, could you at least point me into the general direction of such information?
Thanks! :laugh:

Amarali123 said:
Having an argument with a friend, please settle this for us.
Would it be legal for a firm X to buy device Y, flash stock Android and GAPPs on it and then re-sell it? I've been looking for a related read on Google and elsewhere with little to no luck. if you can't be arsed getting into the specifics, could you at least point me into the general direction of such information?
Thanks! :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This could definitely depend on your jurisdiction. Are you in the US?

Amarali123 said:
Having an argument with a friend, please settle this for us.
Would it be legal for a firm X to buy device Y, flash stock Android and GAPPs on it and then re-sell it? I've been looking for a related read on Google and elsewhere with little to no luck. if you can't be arsed getting into the specifics, could you at least point me into the general direction of such information?
Thanks! :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stock android yes it would be fine but you would not be able to include gapps without google's permission. The same reason the CM team was told to remove gapps from their roms as they had not agreement with google.

zelendel said:
Stock android yes it would be fine but you would not be able to include gapps without google's permission. The same reason the CM team was told to remove gapps from their roms as they had not agreement with google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm aware of the CM C&D ordeal, but I thought that has more to do with the fact that it was included along with the ROM itself. Isn't it more like a grey area everytime we flash GAPPs on our own? Strictly speaking, we shouldn't, but we do just fine anyway?
And would it still be considered illegal, if the aforementioned device ran Android/GAPPs already?
Cheers for your time.
P.S. I'm EU based.

Amarali123 said:
Yeah, I'm aware of the CM C&D ordeal, but I thought that has more to do with the fact that it was included along with the ROM itself. Isn't it more like a grey area everytime we flash GAPPs on our own? Strictly speaking, we shouldn't, but we do just fine anyway?
And would it still be considered illegal, if the aforementioned device ran Android/GAPPs already?
Cheers for your time.
P.S. I'm EU based.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The cease and desist CyanogenMod got was a copyright issue. Basically, Google does not technically release their apps for free, instead they are included as a perk within a manufacturer licensing agreement. Think of it like this, Swype came for free with a lot of phones a few years. But, did that give you the right to distribute it for free? No. It was a payed program, and anytime it was installed on a phone Swype expected to get payed. Google applications are in the exact same category, even if manufacturers do not (always?) pay for them directly. When CyanogenMod distributed them, they were in violation of law by not having a license agreement.
As for reselling a device with modded firmware, I do not know of any law that prohibits this. Up until October of last year there were some manufacturers trying to claim jailbreaking was illegal in the USA, but they had very little in the way of legal precedent to back them up. Then, the Librarian of Congress specifically allowed it under the DMCA exeptions.
If you have not broken the law while installing your firmware I am pretty sure you would be completely free to resell that device in your jurisdiction. The only exception I have ever heard of would involve EULAs. If your device comes with a EULA stating that it cannot be resold, or that if it is resold it has to come with factory settings and software, then it gets murky. Not all jurisdictions allow EULAs to take away or modify basic consumer rights. However, at times (especially in the States) courts will uphold the EULA because the user "agreed" to it.

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.