Weird thing Samsung just did? - T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy Note5

I just found out that the COKC updates source code for the T-Mobile Note 5(SM-N920T) was combined and hidden with the S6+ source codes. I don't know why they did this but if you couldn't find the COKC source codes there they are.

http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=sub&sub=F&searchValue=G928T

That's Dec 15th update. Samsung regularly releases GPL licence related stuff (excluding proprietary part) on their opensource website, which can't be built as whole ROM. Kernel dev can play with it but it ain't Marshmallow.

Radukk said:
That's Dec 15th update. Samsung regularly releases GPL licence related stuff (excluding proprietary part) on their opensource website, which can't be built as whole ROM. Kernel dev can play with it but it ain't Marshmallow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, my point was, that is not attached to SM-N920T at all it was hidden attached to a completely different device. Also I gave the location out for devs who didn't know where to locate it.

Related

Attempts to get CDMA Hero source

So I figured I would document my attempts at getting HTC to release the CDMA Hero kernel source. Hopefully everyone else can document their attempts as well.
Today, 12-30-09, I contacted HTC through email and was in conversation with a gentleman named Tony. He informed me I should call them. I called them and spoke with a gentleman named Fam. After being on the phone for a half hour he informed me that the CDMA kernel was licensed under the Apache license. Obviously this did not make sense so I asked why the GSM kernel would be licensed under GPL and CDMA under Apache. He stumbled over his words, not giving me an answer. He said to check developer.android.com for the information he found but I wasnt able to. I think it's a bunch of BS. Anyone else have better or different experiences?
I emailed them a few days ago & got:
Code:
Dear,
The HTC Customer Service Representative that has been handling your message would like to know if your question has been successfully answered. You can reply to or close your question by visiting:
http://ContactUs.htc.com/wFrmMailLogin.aspx
Ticket Number : [ 09USCW52ENA000753 ]
If you do not respond to or close your question within 15 days, it will be closed automatically.
Sincerely,
HTC
We are unable to receive replies to this email account. Please visit us at www.htc.com if you have any questions or need further assistance.
New Response From [ Mario (North America Support (Tech)) ]
Dear Customer,
Thank you for contacting HTC!
Unfortunately HTC has not released the source code for the CDMA Hero. We have no information on future releases.
We suggest checking our website periodically for updates.
Sincerely,
HTC Support.
Customer Information
Name
Telephone
Email Address
Country United States
Inquiry Information
Inquiry Type Technical Support
Inquiry Description I would like to request the kernel source for the CDMA based Hero. I know the GSM based Hero source has has been released, but I want/need the CDMA based source.
Issue Date & Time
2009/12/23 08:03
chuckhriczko said:
After being on the phone for a half hour he informed me that the CDMA kernel was licensed under the Apache license. Obviously this did not make sense so I asked why the GSM kernel would be licensed under GPL and CDMA under Apache.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Linux kernel is most definitely NOT licensed under the Apache license, obviously. I believe much of Android is, however. Perhaps Tony referred to the kernel by mistake.
In my opinion this is getting rather serious. Code is to be available upon request IMMEDIATELY once a shipping GPL-based binary is out (for sale or otherwise). It is not optional for HTC as it is not their code! They are build a business on the backs of thousands of developers who gave their hard work to Linux in good faith. Apart from this copyright infringement, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of an open source OS, leaving us to hack our phones device-by-device rather than making changes that can benefit everyone.
I have written to them several times before...and I must admit that my most recent contacts have done away with the please's and thank-you's. I think chuckhriczko is right to start documenting our contacts.
Where did all the GSM people send their complaints to?
where do we send these complaints?
I'd like to join in.
surrealbliss said:
where do we send these complaints?
I'd like to join in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HERE
This silly game is pissing me off
If the GSM Hero source is released it makes no sense for the wait. I e-mailed HTC and will post when I receve a reply.
I just e-mailed them with the help from 5tr4t4s comment here (just changed a few words around).
Here is my e-mail to them
I am writing you in an attemt to get the linux kernel that should be available upon request, BY LAW!!!!
I believe much of the Android os is, however the Linux kernel is most definitely NOT licensed under the Apache license.
In my opinion this is getting rather serious. Code is to be available upon request IMMEDIATELY once a shipping GPL-based binary is out (for sale or otherwise). It is not optional for you(HTC) as it is not your code! You are a business built on the backs of thousands of developers who gave their hard work to Linux in good faith. Apart from this copyright infringement, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of an open source OS, leaving us to hack our phones device-by-device rather than making changes that can benefit everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If and when i get a reply i will update with their response.
this is what i got.
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
WTF?!?
justinisyoung said:
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
gu1dry said:
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah... i was wondering if that guy even read what he linked to. probably googled some random **** and just linked it.
gu1dry said:
Um, the Ars Technica article he links even states the kernel is released under GPLv2, such BS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wtf is wrong with them. Its like pulling teeth with these people to get what we paid for
I am not a legal person at all so I'm not going to debate if what they are doing is legal or illegal.
Buuuttt.. i do want to add my opinion. From my experiences with linux and gpl and whatnot.... I think HTC should have the right to keep the portion of code they worked on closed source. Show what they modified but not how exactly they modified it.
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world. I belive you should willingly open your code, but not be legally forced into doing so.
There are plenty of companies out there that release what they use in a very similar fasion, roku and apple to name a few. They don't release the source of the portion they modified but they tell you what they modified.... and post the source of what was modified, *before* the made the changes.
http://www.roku.com/support/gpl_rdvp
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/iphone-312/
unless you're a lawyer.... making claims or demanding something from a big company like this... I belive alot of people will be kind to know that you're probally just talking out your butt. No offence to anyone that stands behind open source.... but I hear alot of backyard courtroom talk like this in my field of work and I just smile and nod the entire time, and take heed no to take anything they say too seriously.
If you make a claim, expecially when it comes to legal stuff, make sure you bring it with the quotes references & citations of where exactly someone is breaking the law.
justinisyoung said:
this is what i got.
Hello Justin,
The source that we have available for the HTC Hero can be found at developer.htc.com. The Android operating system does not fall under the GPL but under version 2 of the Apache License agreement (Apache2). Under the Apache2, HTC is required to give the source code of the operating system that was modified to work on the phone. Any closed source files that are part of a program that is installed on and not part of the operating system are allowed to be removed from the source code that is provided by the Licenser. The file you are trying to find by referencing the GPL is a closed source file that is provided by Sprint to “install” the settings of the network into the phone so the software of the phone can communicate properly with the hardware of the phone. Therefore, the source kernel that we provide on our developer website follows the Apache2 guidelines. You may contact Sprint to see if they host a different kernel for the Sprint Hero or you can go to the Android Developer website for more information on Android. I have listed below the Android Open Source Licensing FAQ website, an article that is suggested to by the Android developers on why they chose Apache2 over the GPLv2, and a link to the Apache2 Terms and Conditions.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/licensingandoss.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Philip
HTC Technical Support
www.htc.com
WTF?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So it looks like they said the same thing to you as they said to me. "Philip" contradicted himself saying that the kernel is HTCs closed source code (which it is not) but then goes on to say that Sprint must release the kernel? If it's closed source why would Sprint have it? Because it's not. I actually went the other route to avoid the Sprint issue. I told the guy I had a Droid Eris and asked for the kernel knowing full well it is the same kernel for both phones. The guy avoided the Sprint issue but still held onto the "closed source" bs. So with that it appears they will never release the source code. If this is the case what legal action could we bring against them. I love HTCs phones but, being a linux guy, it disgusts me how they are trying to benefit from the open source movement but not give back. It's like if Canonical didnt release Ubuntu's source code. It's international law!
If these attempts don't get resolved this could be something the eff might get involved in. Just a thought at least.
http://www.eff.org/
Bnick007
johnsongrantr said:
I am not a legal person at all so I'm not going to debate if what they are doing is legal or illegal.
Buuuttt.. i do want to add my opinion. From my experiences with linux and gpl and whatnot.... I think HTC should have the right to keep the portion of code they worked on closed source. Show what they modified but not how exactly they modified it.
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world. I belive you should willingly open your code, but not be legally forced into doing so.
There are plenty of companies out there that release what they use in a very similar fasion, roku and apple to name a few. They don't release the source of the portion they modified but they tell you what they modified.... and post the source of what was modified, *before* the made the changes.
http://www.roku.com/support/gpl_rdvp
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/iphone-312/
unless you're a lawyer.... making claims or demanding something from a big company like this... I belive alot of people will be kind to know that you're probally just talking out your butt. No offence to anyone that stands behind open source.... but I hear alot of backyard courtroom talk like this in my field of work and I just smile and nod the entire time, and take heed no to take anything they say too seriously.
If you make a claim, expecially when it comes to legal stuff, make sure you bring it with the quotes references & citations of where exactly someone is breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With more commercial OSS licenses such as BSD and Apache. But GPL is a viral license of sorts. If you add to the kernel your derivative work automatically becomes GPL, its designed this way for this very reason.
I'm just speaking about the Kernel.
Basically what you need to ask for is the modifications done to the Kernel that falls under GPL. You are NOT interested in the OS as a whole but just want the kernel source for the CDMA Hero as the GPL dictates.
More info here.
johnsongrantr said:
Just because you change or add code to an software base that's open and free doesn't mean your work gets donated to the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what it means, actually. Go read the GPL.
And after some research I'm doing the reference you did not provide, "Go read" isn't really a solid argument. But you are all correct it appears.
"the underlying Linux kernel is licensed under version 2 of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPLv2)"
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...se-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars
"The GPL is an example of a powerful copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to"
"GPLv1 said that any vendor distributing binaries must also make the human readable source code available under the same licensing terms"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
"the biggest change in version 2 was to introduce a "Liberty or Death" clause - the clause that says if somebody uses a patent or something else to effectively make a program non-free then it cannot be distributed at all"
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript.en.html#liberty-or-death
ok so I wrote HTC and this is what I said, I would like some feedback before I send it, let me know what I should change:
Let me start off by stating that I love the new Hero that I have, You all have done a great job in producing this phone.
Now let me get to the point of this email. HTC chose to make and develop an android phone, when doing this HTC has accepted to the current licensing laws. Now I know that you (HTC) will probably respond that your version of android is licensed under Apache2. Whether or not it is, does not make a difference, as I am not asking for HTC's source of their distribution of android, I am only asking for the kernel source, which falls under the GPL licensing no matter which way you look at it. Let me give you source to look at.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING:
Now in section 2B of the GNU Licensing Terms and Agreements it states:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
Section 3B states when distributing the kernel (which you did when you sold the cellphones) you must:
"Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code"
Now whether or not HTC wants to distribute the kernel source, does not matter; By law you are required to release your KERNEL source. So we (the owners of the CDMA SPRINT HERO) will give HTC ten days before we make this issue publicly known, which could lead to.... Well we all know what it could lead to.
Thank you for your time,
We hope you will make the right decision,
Samuel R. Barthelemy
One of the thousand CDMA HERO OWNERS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wasupwithuman said:
ok so I wrote HTC and this is what I said, I would like some feedback before I send it, let me know what I should change:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is good man. It is does the whole good cop bad cop thing by being nice yet firm and you let them know within ten days we would do something. Here is the thing though. We need to make sure we do something after ten days if they don't do anything. Can anybody actually make something happen in ten days? Because if we tell them that and nobody does anything and we dont do anything then they will just see these emails as idle threats that simply clog their inbox.

Android phone vendors and GPL complience

Cam anyone tell me how good the different vendors (HTC, Moto, Samsung etc) are when it comes to GPL complience on their Android handsets?
In particular, are there any vendors that have either A.Refused to post GPL sources for a device or B.Posted kernel source for a device that is missing pieces and/or does not match what was shipped on the phone?
I heard some reports that HTC are guilty of point B (shipping kernel source that is missing stuff linked into the on-phone kernel) but I cant find anything with Google about that.

Will the ROM and Kernel sources be released?

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.

BLU Finally got around to kernel source...

In theory this should be quite useful, no?
Just putting this up here for those who may have lost hope, but on a whim I checked their source repository today and it would seem they've at least uploaded Kernel source!
ftp://Kernel_End_User:[email protected]/
Directory: Pure XL P0010UU (it's a bit of a mess, you may wish to CNTRL+F this)
I haven't checked their software repo yet for ROM source, but it was not uploaded when I initially found this information about a month and a half ago.
The kernel is only VANILLA STOCK source, I haven't compiled it or anything, I'm only linking their servers because I imagine that this isn't getting checked on a regular basis (not much to expect would happen). But, something has happened, so I figured I'd draw some attention to it.
Many thanks to those ROM and kernel devs who have been working to bring us some solid software. It's honestly my only major gripe with the phone.
We (me, acheron, root-expert) tried to compile this several times with CyanogenMod repos with no luck. It's from 7th December 2015 so nothing changed.
bemolx said:
We (me, acheron, root-expert) tried to compile this several times with CyanogenMod repos with no luck. It's from 7th December 2015 so nothing changed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Darn. If only they were more willing to facilitate development.... the software is my only real issue with the phone. Thanks for your work, however.
Same thing here... I would love to have the latest CyanogenMod
Only for updating this post:
Kernel source, mostly ready for Marshmallow ROMs, you can find here on 'cm-13.0' branch.
Linux upstream 3.10.103
Still trying to boot it up.
Gonna update CyanogenMod thread soon.
Cheers
bemolx said:
Only for updating this post:
Kernel source, mostly ready for Marshmallow ROMs, you can find here on 'cm-13.0' branch.
Linux upstream 3.10.103
Still trying to boot it up.
Gonna update CyanogenMod thread soon.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great news @bemolx
TheLastCanadian said:
Darn. If only they were more willing to facilitate development.... the software is my only real issue with the phone. Thanks for your work, however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Out of curiosity, how have other manufacturers "facilitated" this sort of development for their products?
vicks1008 said:
Out of curiosity, how have other manufacturers "facilitated" this sort of development for their products?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some lend active support to the venture, LG has a dedicated team for liason, better documentation, etc.
I think it's probably pretty telling that it's only now the BLU source has worked - and it took them 5 months to even release it.
BLU releases kernel source codes upon request instead of proactively providing them. If they're asked for on launch, then the kernel source is released shortly after. So I don't believe the claim that it took 5 months to release.
Can you show me proof of other manufacturers lending support to show BLU?
NVMD.
TheLastCanadian said:
Your belief is irrelevant. They have had many requests, and always it is a referral to the FTP site they host. This site did not populate with the kernel/rom source for quite a few months after I bought the phone, and I was already behind the curve by about 2. I purchased mine on the 30th of December, 2015. I made this post the day after I noticed they had Kernel/Rom. If the URL was still working, I could verify for you the time limit. With that said, it was approximately 5 months.
As for other manufacturers lending support.... ZTE for instance is collaborating with Cyanogenmod, LG proactively provides source and has actually tried to make the process quite simple for most of their phones, and ultimately, contacting BLU about the matter is functionally worthless, as BLU is a reseller and at the whim of Gionee. BLU can't help because they don't do R&D or software as I can tell for the phone.
I'm particularly pissed about the fact I asked before I bought the phone if source was available and it was GPL compliant and I was told yes. 5 months is just a little outside of Amazon's return policy. The Pure XL is a good phone, but the software is quite lacklustre. CM would really be the bees' knees.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm obviously not going to bother contacting my connections at BLU with that attitude. Good luck guys!
vicks1008 said:
Well I'm obviously not going to bother contacting my connections at BLU with that attitude. Good luck guys!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I should correct myself slightly. Supposing my e-mail record is correct, they released it 4 months after the phone. I say your belief isn't relevant because a fact is a fact.... as of April 5th, I was still getting apologies from them about Kernel source not being available, specifically, "No ETA on source at this time". Ergo, it could have been longer.
As for BLU, I'm just being honest. They don't develop, they're a reseller.
bemolx said:
Only for updating this post:
Kernel source, mostly ready for Marshmallow ROMs, you can find here on 'cm-13.0' branch.
Linux upstream 3.10.103
Still trying to boot it up.
Gonna update CyanogenMod thread soon.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a small update;
Linux kernel upstream: 3.10.104
Regenerated defconfig as well, the same branch.
I'll try it with full build today.

Nokia 8 kernel sources

Here is the link to the Nokia 8 kernel sources (Nokia8 V4.84A OSS)
https://www.nokia.com/en_int/phones/opensource
Hope there are developers for this phone :fingers-crossed:
Hopefully this gets the Devs pumped up a bit! But without a Bootloader Unlock it's kind of a "Bake A Cake But You Can't Eat It" scenario
Actually its pointless to release kernel source without unlocking the bootloader. Or, please correct me if I am wrong.
Correct , pointless but we can hope I'm still hanging on to my Nokia 8 just on the of chance HMD do live up to their "we will unlock these pesky bootloaders"
I'm new to trying to understand Android phones sources, but to me it appears that this is insufficient. I can't find anything that resembles what I understand to be a device tree or the relevant make files. Also, it appears to be quite incomplete, certainly nowhere near the full android source tree. Does it even include all the copyleft source?
[/COLOR]
madb1lly said:
I'm new to trying to understand Android phones sources, but to me it appears that this is insufficient. I can't find anything that resembles what I understand to be a device tree or the relevant make files. Also, it appears to be quite incomplete, certainly nowhere near the full android source tree. Does it even include all the copyleft source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nokia released the *kernel*'s source code, not the full Android code..
Get you knowledge here: https://forum.xda-developers.com/an...erence-how-to-compile-android-kernel-t3627297

Categories

Resources