We have many examples of many brands who dont release kernel sources of their phones
e.g :Micromax
So I need help about title of the thread
Well, AFAIK reverse engineering a kernel is not possible.
Am I true?
If I am true then why its not possible?
Cannot be a decoder like apk tool which can reverse engineer apk be possible?
I need a technical explaination for that.
I knew I won't get answer for this in general section so posted here also I guess this topic deserves this place
Any answer appreciated
@Varun- there is a guide also here on xda http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=777380 by dkcldark.
The guide is for unpacking zimage i don't know whether you already know this or this is not what you are looking for, this guide is a bit lengthy and seems tough to perform but i think you must have a look on this.
and another is by Chenglu http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1294436
Have a look at these guide if they help untill some Big and Good developer help us in this way ahead...
Not disclosing the kernel source is a direct violation of GNU GPL. You can formally request the sources, email FSF/Stallman or sue the company.
Sent from my LT26i using XDA
They wont listen to it. We all tried long ago. Pettions, letter , email . They just ignore it.
Good morning/evening,
As discussed in the other thread we started regarding changes to our site, we promised that we would change things around a bit and one of them was the long standing Sharing Rule (also known as Rule 12). We have worked diligently with the administration and moderation teams to turn the one we had into something that would make developer's works a bit safer from stealing and other unsavory things.
This thread is not meant as an announcement but rather as an open discussion platform so that you (the members/developers) can weigh in before we write it in the stone tablet along with the rest of them. This will be an open discussion regarding this topic only. Also, unlike the previous thread, which was more of a TownHall type of thread, this one WILL be moderated. In other words,
* keep the thread on topic;
* Unrelated posts will be removed;
* Members not adhering to the above two will be disciplined.
We look forward to having good, meaningful feedback from all of you (otherwise we would have added this to the rules like we always do). We want to have good, positive change into this community to make it into a pleasant atmosphere for all.
Without further ado, I give you the beta draft of Rule 12
Rule 12 - Sharing
XDA-Developers is based on the principle of sharing to transmit knowledge. This is the cornerstone of our site. Our members and developers freely share their experience, knowledge, and finished works with the rest of the community to promote growth within the developer community, and to encourage those still learning to become better. There are those, however, who take advantage of this model and try to make personal gains from the hard work of others.
In order to preserve the delicate balance between sharing for the good of the community and blatant self-promotion, regular members and developers alike must understand (and agree) to the following:
12-1. Give credits where due - Credits and acknowledgements for using and releasing work which is based on someone else's work are an absolute must. Works reported to have no credits will be taken down until proper acknowledgements are added by the member in question;
12-2. Courtesy - While most of the work released on our site falls under the umbrella of open source, that is not the only license model being used by developers on xda-developers. In order to prevent problems, we ask that if you decide to base your work on someone else's that you check the license model being used (as it might not be as permissive as one may think);
12-3. Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
12-4. Developers can issue take down requests (by contacting the Dev Relations team) under the following circumstances:
- in-process builds start showing up on forums when the developer is not yet ready to release the work;
- cases in which another developer is too aggressively soliciting donations or misrepresenting the work (kanging);
- unofficial builds where an official build is already available;
In summary, we want people to have access to work and knowledge alike. Sharing is good and courtesy and ethics go a long way.
Developers with questions, comments, complaints, or concerns about our rules (or anything!) should send a PM to our Dev Relations team (efrant or sykopompos) or to a Moderator. We are here to help!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have at it!
Liking what I am seeing. Well done
zelendel said:
Liking what I am seeing. Well done
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey bud
Kinda miss seeing you around
Hope you are well....
I like it
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
BeansTown106 said:
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's clarify, for all those developers that have no issue with unofficial builds, they can stay. This would only come into play for those developers who do not wish to allow unofficial builds. A suggestion would be to add that to your OP (many just use a C&P OP with specifics for the device being posted) if you don't want unofficial builds posted.
We will not be removing unofficial builds just for the sake of removing them. The current procedure would be followed, where you would report the post using our Report post feature, making mention in the report that you do not allow unofficial builds of your work.
Much better than the old version. One suggestion: When mentioning licenses, make it explicit that distributing any GPL software (like Linux or TWRP) requires making the source code available.
BeansTown106 said:
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
_that said:
Much better than the old version. One suggestion: When mentioning licenses, make it explicit that distributing any GPL software (like Linux or TWRP) requires making the source code available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We did consider that. But there far too many different types of licenses out there to put them in writing. Thus, we needed a more general model. The gpl requirements still stand, not because of our rules but because of gpl itself. Our rules never have and never will truncate license requirements.
jerdog said:
Let's clarify, for all those developers that have no issue with unofficial builds, they can stay. This would only come into play for those developers who do not wish to allow unofficial builds. A suggestion would be to add that to your OP (many just use a C&P OP with specifics for the device being posted) if you don't want unofficial builds posted.
We will not be removing unofficial builds just for the sake of removing them. The current procedure would be followed, where you would report the post using our Report post feature, making mention in the report that you do not allow unofficial builds of your work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea thats what i figured, basically developers who allow unofficials can stay, and those who dont are now allowed to report for takedown
coal686 said:
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that seems fair enough and makes total sense
Don't see any flaws in there. Great job!
Sent from my YUNIQUE using XDA Labs
egzthunder1 said:
Hey bud
Kinda miss seeing you around
Hope you are well....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All is well. Hope they are with you as well.
I'm always around lol just wanted to step back for a bit while everything was sorted.
This revision to the rule is long in coming. And seems just about perfect. Ill post my thoughts more after my gf birthday dinner tonight.
coal686 said:
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Very well explained.
Hopefully this goes some way to help developers feel like they want to be here and have a bit more control of their work. Great initiative
Nice job!
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Jonny said:
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In that case, ROM developers can just start modifying the Apache license to say explicitly that unofficial builds of officially supported devices are not allowed to be distributed. Because they complied with the AOSP's Apache license when forking the work, they can set their own terms at will. I don't like that though because then every ROM is going to have their own license terms and it'd become a complete nightmare to work with.
Jonny said:
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the case, someone could post a GPL-licensed tool to circumvent payment in paid apps on XDA. So clearly 3rd party licenses do not outweigh forum rules.
The Flash said:
In that case, ROM developers can just start modifying the Apache license to say explicitly that unofficial builds of officially supported devices are not allowed to be distributed. Because they complied with the AOSP's Apache license when forking the work, they can set their own terms at will. I don't like that though because then every ROM is going to have their own license terms and it'd become a complete nightmare to work with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree totally, that would make our job a nightmare like you said. I don't think we are ever going to get a solution that makes everyone 100% happy but I think the new change is about the best we are ever going to get, it's great that it has been well received by both mods and devs
I'm not a dev so i know this doesn't apply to people like me, but can this be explained to me - I'm not clever enough to figure this out:
Rule 12-3 from your new beta draft states:
Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my previous post in that other thread:
Attention:
Redistribution, modifying files used within this project's file or integrating with other projects are prohibited with no exceptions other than my projects.
Making mirrors, re-uploading to another servers are also prohibited with no exceptions.
If you will do something which prohibited ask me for permission. If you do without my permission i will report you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He never owned the htc/samsung/lg created rom in the first place, and didn't create any of the mods within his rom.
From what i can tell with the new rule, as long as he gives credits to the original creator of the mods within his rom, he can still lock his rom down as he hasn't broken any rules.
I probably have the complete 'wrong end of the stick' here...
Background:
I have a couple of budget devices and one of them a mediatek tab. As everyone knows these don't get a lot of love. As my devices are getting older I was thinking of making some changes and software is hard to come by. I found a few unofficial recoveries and some rooting methods and was making a thread for these.
My question is:
I have made a thread for my Lenovo Tab 2 A7-20F here with links to various sources of info and software which I'm planning use on my device and report back but
How do I know if these are safe? They could be working but what I mean is in terms of data safety, trojans etc. because someone else might also use these. I don't want to later find out that these were not safe.
What is a better approach to work with such devices where little work has been done and very few people would be using them so interest level might be very low?
Once I collate all working software where do I put them up? Since the XDA thread might remain but lot of file links break as they are taken down if they are not used.
Thanks.
Fonterra said:
Background:
I have a couple of budget devices and one of them a mediatek tab. As everyone knows these don't get a lot of love. As my devices are getting older I was thinking of making some changes and software is hard to come by. I found a few unofficial recoveries and some rooting methods and was making a thread for these.
My question is:
I have made a thread for my Lenovo Tab 2 A7-20F here with links to various sources of info and software which I'm planning use on my device and report back but
How do I know if these are safe? They could be working but what I mean is in terms of data safety, trojans etc. because someone else might also use these. I don't want to later find out that these were not safe.
What is a better approach to work with such devices where little work has been done and very few people would be using them so interest level might be very low?
Once I collate all working software where do I put them up? Since the XDA thread might remain but lot of file links break as they are taken down if they are not used.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no way to know, you take your chances like the rest of us, unless someone has previously discovered something malicious about those files and made a note of it for everyone to see.
Sent from my SM-S767VL using Tapatalk
Who watches the costume ROM,kernel and etc... Developers?
Is there a good protection to things we downloading?
How much in precentage, A costume ROM checking for some dangerous lines of codes?
How precent of users uses sorcece codes to compile his own costume ROMs?
Do you accept that there is a very sharp community that focused one each costume ROM that they not allow malicious code to run on users phones?
________________________________________
Sended from a battery draining costume ROM.Named "Evolution 13" on Mi 9t pro(Raphael)
Recognized Developer Code of Conduct & Minimum Requirements.
Recognized Developer Code of Conduct As an XDA Developers member with special standing as part of our developer program, we obviously have some expectations of your conduct. We try to be friendly here, and while we understand that not everyone is...
forum.xda-developers.com