Hey guys,
Starting a new section on the site and want to get XDA User's and Dev's opinions on the matter.
Head over to the site for info:
http://theunlockr.com/2010/02/18/de...veloper-pages-on-theunlockr-com-beta-testing/
Think it could be a great resource for rom junkies and devs alike (and a nice compliment to XDA for that matter).
Thanks for your time guys!
I really am not trying to hijack your thread but this sounds like the OpenRelease project we are already working on and is almost done...
This is gonna be yet another source for people to check...
If we fragment any more, doing the OpenRelease project will be pointless.
No it is different. Our site is not for a repository of ROMs (although the site has that already), it is for Developers to show off all of their work in one location. It's more of a mini blog for developers, they can still use our mini blog for releasing whatever they want and easily head to your page to post the ROM in your repository without much effort, we CAN coexist lol
Actually I just thought, our two projects might be able to help each other and benefit the community further...
PM'd you, Simon.
Anyone wonder why there are devs on this device who are running their own custom roms, yet no one is PUBLICLY developing for it? They all have personal roms, and are unwilling to post them for us to use? Anyone know why?
Well there are no roms and development because we can't. Samsung didn't release the source code for the wifi chip so we can't mess around with stuff as much.
I don't know of anyone having personal roms or anything similar of the sort so where did you hear that? (As rude as that sounds I am genuinely curious)
Zadeis said:
Well there are no roms and development because we can't. Samsung didn't release the source code for the wifi chip so we can't mess around with stuff as much.
I don't know of anyone having personal roms or anything similar of the sort so where did you hear that? (As rude as that sounds I am genuinely curious)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That explains some of it... But I have seen some members sig lines say things like:
DEVICES I own:
Galaxy Tab +, rom= personal rom
or
my own rom that Im not sharing due to xda community on that forum
I'm not trying to start a flame against any specific member (which is why Im not naming names), Im just curious as to why they dont actually share their work...
Well my take on that is since we can't mess with it they most likely made small changes and there is no point in releasing it or they made a rom and it is there own rom and it has been released thus the 'personal' title.
In terms of the no sharing I think I know who you are talking about and he/she has recently released a rom in the development section if you look.
Zadeis said:
Well my take on that is since we can't mess with it they most likely made small changes and there is no point in releasing it or they made a rom and it is there own rom and it has been released thus the 'personal' title.
In terms of the no sharing I think I know who you are talking about and he/she has recently released a rom in the development section if you look.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol I DO know and I saw their Rom.... Actually tried flashing it.... I'm glad that they finally released.... I love seeing development explode..? maybe that's just what I'm waiting for??
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA
I am running my own personal created ROM, but as suggested above, the changes are minimal and so releasing the ROM would really be pointless. I am testing tweaks and mods here and there, but I really haven't found something super beneficial worthy of being released to the community.
Once Samsung releases some wifi driver source (or ICS source), then development *should* pick up.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
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...
Hello everyone
In search for new ROMs for some older devices (yet still great hardware, such as Nook HD and Lenovo s930) I have, I stumbled across this website: getdroidtips.com
For example, for the phone I mentioned, it has a list of available options:
https://www.getdroidtips.com/custom-rom-lenovo-s930/
Question is, can the site be trusted at all? I have searched high and low, but found no mention or reference of the site anywhere, the ROM guides contain no comments. As if it lived in an alternate reality.
What about the needrom.com? It also has ROMs I might like, but it was just redflagged by Malwarebytes on mylaptop.
I'd appreciate some insight from those of you who happen to know anything about those sites.
Best
W.
wojtasys said:
Hello everyone
In search for new ROMs for some older devices (yet still great hardware, such as Nook HD and Lenovo s930) I have, I stumbled across this website: getdroidtips.com
For example, for the phone I mentioned, it has a list of available options:
https://www.getdroidtips.com/custom-rom-lenovo-s930/
Question is, can the site be trusted at all? I have searched high and low, but found no mention or reference of the site anywhere, the ROM guides contain no comments. As if it lived in an alternate reality.
What about the needrom.com? It also has ROMs I might like, but it was just redflagged by Malwarebytes on mylaptop.
I'd appreciate some insight from those of you who happen to know anything about those sites.
Best
W.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems shady, they're listening custom roms that do not exist. My guess is they're fishing for clicks, or worse.
I think they're scam. The whole website is a loophole that moves you though page after page, and in the end you end up where your started.
keivan1983 said:
I think they're scam. The whole website is a loophole that moves you though page after page, and in the end you end up where your started.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so is androidfilehost.com a scam too (more specific SGCMarkus ) ?
because all their links are pointing to that site
well guess i'm about to find out
I wanted to download roms from here for my v30 but this website is just a mess
jaxx0rr said:
so is androidfilehost.com a scam too (more specific SGCMarkus ) ?
because all their links are pointing to that site
well guess i'm about to find out
I wanted to download roms from here for my v30 but this website is just a mess
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Androidfilehost is a legit site, many developers here use it to share their development. In fact, XDA's Recognized Developers, Recognized Contributors and Recognized Themers receive free developer accounts at AFH.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Droidriven said:
Androidfilehost is a legit site, many developers here use it to share their development. In fact, XDA's Recognized Developers, Recognized Contributors and Recognized Themers receive free developer accounts at AFH.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you!
Meanwhile I realized although their site is legit some the links are outdated so ill just try some roms from here and see which one gets my second camera and wireless charging to work
ill document my findings here https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-v30/how-to/custom-roms-v30-h930review-t3932809