Develop Bugs

nand on rahael 800 project want you!

This is not my development
Information:
It's half a month since I first post on Neopeek that I managed to boot Android Linux kernel on raph800 from NAND. Although after that I had solved some of the basic and important bugs, I'm now really making progress slow.
Some people have made great suggestion that me making all the source open, and I decide to follow it. So here is it.
Plan to support: raph800,raph100.
Likely to be supported: diam types, other raph types.
Whether a phone type is supported depends on the test mechine used by our project members.That is , if you have a phone other than raph800 or raph100 but joined the develop team, then we are happy to add your device to the support list.
Sorry to say that it's nearly impossible to use git over my Internet connection, so I have to host the project on Google, using a svn repository.
Notice:
I'm not a professional Linux kernel developer and it's my first time to participate in a open source project(not to say that I'm even the creator…Orz), so if I make something wrong or inproperly please do feel free to point that out and I'll correct it.
Please none developers don't bother in this…
Resource and Participating:
Project is hosted here.
You are accepted as a team member only if you can follow the instructions below.
Read about the project status and the TODO list.
Make a positive () patch for the project to prove that you're qualified to develop.
Send your patch to me by mail and if it's accepted, I'll then add your account to the contributor list.
And please anyone who likes the project spread the word about it over the net, thanks!
from http://www.fluyu.com/2011/04/7/Project_Announcement.html
the project on neopeek http://www.neopeek.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6490

Very nice! Will post some feed back about my experience on my Fuze/aka RAPH110 once I am able to. Glad to see the project being shared on XDA!!!

video:
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjUyMjI0ODg4.html
one more link:
http://www.neopeek.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6490

We should please viruscreazy for patch to Camera/Video. Maybe he can help us?

Glad to hear for that, hope to coming soon. I waiting for this too long

good deal! i'll be watching this closely

Oh man now this looks awesome! if they get it to work, i'm going back to my Fuze!

how long the battery can work?

vincentchan said:
how long the battery can work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exact same as haret/SD card builds, probably worse. Lots of optimization needs to happen for NAND, on RHOD battery life is way worse presently. Just because it's being flashed onto the phone doesn't mean the work is done...

if anyone is interested i downloaded complate source from google code. You can use it at your own risk. I hope someone will make shortly NBH from this.
http://www.zshare.net/download/89284876bbed3e9a/

This is amazing! I would definitely like to test the build.

mirror:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FUU8YI4S

majkeljj said:
mirror:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FUU8YI4S
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I had to backtrace you over to neopeek's forum to understand this post, with absolutely no explanation.
Folks, he downloaded the source from jamesallen426's google code site and put it in a 7z file...
It doesn't appear ready to test dude, I really hope you asked jamesallen426 for permission to do this... I would assume if he was ready to test it, he would announce a release and post it...

Oh com'on, he was just thinking of a good way to rid the world of the d-pad devil device (triple-d)
I honestly didn't think it was exactly ready for "prime time" but I was considering flashing when I had the time...

R^7Z said:
Oh com'on, he was just thinking of a good way to rid the world of the d-pad devil device (triple-d)
I honestly didn't think it was exactly ready for "prime time" but I was considering flashing when I had the time...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
exactly. as I wrote "i downloaded complete source from google code" I don't write that it is flash ready, and write that maybe someone can make nbh from this source if he have time and required knowledge. If you want to play with this, here now you have source in one file, you don't need to install additional applications to download source from google code. If we want to push this project forward we need original files to play with them, test something and send to jamesallen426 new files.

Helo. Can anyone tell me what device is Raphael 800? Is it regular HTC Touch Pro GSM version or? Will this work on this device? Tnx.
Sent from my Android using XDA App

I believe RAPH800 is GSM (I could be wrong) but the idea is, we need others to test this that have no problem with their device ending up as a paper weight. As mentioned earlier: by trying this, no one is liable for you destroying your device. Just need testers who know what they are doing and are willing to accept this.

R^7Z said:
I believe RAPH800 is GSM (I could be wrong) but the idea is, we need others to test this that have no problem with their device ending up as a paper weight. As mentioned earlier: by trying this, no one is liable for you destroying your device. Just need testers who know what they are doing and are willing to accept this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAPH800 is CDMA (Sprint and others). The RAPH100 and 110 are GSM.

I have an HTC fuze here I will give to a developer for testing purposes. Contact me, and I will arrange to send it to you. US-based preferred, just for the shipping convenience.
Thanks.

Let me in! let me in!
R^7Z said:
I believe RAPH800 is GSM (I could be wrong) but the idea is, we need others to test this that have no problem with their device ending up as a paper weight. As mentioned earlier: by trying this, no one is liable for you destroying your device. Just need testers who know what they are doing and are willing to accept this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a spare AT&T Fuze (Raph110) which except for the Touchscreen, everything else is operational. Which means for me it's already a brick anyway (i have 2 other ones), so I have no problem trying out some flashing

The GPL obligates Samsung to give us the kernel source

Samsung has given us a kernel source. However, from all the devs, I have heard that this is not the source code for the kernel that is on our phones, and the resulting compiled kernel is not exactly the same as the stock flashed kernel.
The GPL doesn't obligate Samsung to release a source for a kernel, it obligates Samsung to release the source for our kernel.
Maybe if enough of us contact Samsung on this issue, they will release the correct source. I found a way to contact their open-source department about this.
Go to:
https://opensource.samsung.com/
Select Mobile => Mobile phone from the dropdown
Search on the page for SPH-D710 (that's our phones' model number)
On the far-right there is an envelope you can use to contact them.
Use it and ask that they release the actual source code for the shipped kernel version.

I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.

jirafabo said:
I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did the OG Epic fellows ever manage to get Samsung to release the real source?

jirafabo said:
I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no 90 day grace period. The kernel source code must be made available when the compiled kernel is made available.

Really, the only recourse is to sue. And since Google owns the copyright, my guess is that they would have to be the ones to sue (not a lawyer, so not 100% sure).
The odds of Google suing Samsung are about as good as the odds of OJ finding the real killer, so we are basically screwed.
Situations like this seriously undermine the open source nature of Android. If it happens enough to where Android loses market share because people doubt Google's commitment to open source, then they might do something about it. Since this issue probably only matters to a few percent of Android users, that's not very likely.
Don't get me wrong - I'm still a big fan of Google, but their philosophy of "do no evil" cannot be maintained forever as a publicly traded corporation. In the long run, "shareholder value" and the bottom line will win. Even more the reason to do what we can to keep Android as open as possible.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Maybe if enough of us contact Samsung on this issue, they will release the correct source. I found a way to contact their open-source department about this.
Go to:
https://opensource.samsung.com/
Select Mobile => Mobile phone from the dropdown
Search on the page for SPH-D710 (that's our phones' model number)
On the far-right there is an envelope you can use to contact them.
Use it and ask that they release the actual source code for the shipped kernel version.

Some one with some pull around here needs to contact Cyanogen... He does work for Samsung after all.
Samsung Galaxy S II

I don't think it is clear whether
1) source is the wrong source
2) source is incomplete but builds ok
3) source is broken/buggy
4) source is correct, but build parameters are slightly off

Okay, so I just received a response from Samsung actually.
♦ classification : Mobile Phone ♦
♦ model name : SPH-D710 ♦
Dear Customer,
Thank you for your continuous interest in our product.
Supported kernel version(EG30) is correct.
Where did you check the version?
Sincerely yours,
You may find the source code
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could a dev chime in on how we know the source version provided is incorrect? I have seen this referenced numerous times, with it cited as a possible reason LOS seems exacerbated on custom ROMs. If no dev sees this, can anyone point to one of the threads where a dev said this so that we can ask them for more information?

manekineko said:
Okay, so I just received a response from Samsung actually.
Could a dev chime in on how we know the source version provided is incorrect? I have seen this referenced numerous times, with it cited as a possible reason LOS seems exacerbated on custom ROMs. If no dev sees this, can anyone point to one of the threads where a dev said this so that we can ask them for more information?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I was surprised to get a response from them so quickly.
If we don't get a response from a dev it wouldn't be to hard to investigate ourselves.
-Compile kernel from source (they give instructions)
-Flash to phone
-show different version # compared to stock

I just got the same reply. We need some info on what to say back. Developers please chime in. Thanks
Sent From My Evo Killer!!!

Okay, so I tracked down one of the places where I've seen reference to the fact that the source Samsung released isn't right.
The ACS Stock Kernel thread says:
Well as everyone knows, the source released from samsung was some bull****... LoStKernel, makes the best use of that source and adds lots of tweaks, and in my opinion is the best compiled custom kernel available...
But, some people stand by the point that only the stock pulled kernel is free from LoS, or is the LoS is least Rampant for them in that kernel.. But they want CWM too!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I private messaged the dev of that kernel, chris41g.
I also contacted zedomax, since he's also a kernel dev and I figure as such he might know something about this.
If anyone can think of anyone else that can shed more light on this, feel free to chime in.

manekineko said:
Okay, so I tracked down one of the places where I've seen reference to the fact that the source Samsung released isn't right.
The ACS Stock Kernel thread says:
I private messaged the dev of that kernel, chris41g.
I also contacted zedomax, since he's also a kernel dev and I figure as such he might know something about this.
If anyone can think of anyone else that can shed more light on this, feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good. Please post when you get some info as I would love to email Samsung back about this.
Sent From My Evo Killer!!!

Evo3d people have some individuals who would request a kernel source whenever a new kernel was released. I forget specific names, but these people would get in touch with the legal department of HTC, and the source would usually be out within a month...

I've heard back from Zedomax and chris41g.
Zedo didn't know anything about this kernel source differing issue.
chris41g says that it is obvious the source and the stock kernel differ. According to him they have different version numbers and different configs, which should show up in dmesg and kmsgs. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually have an Epic 4G Touch, so he's not able to explain in more detail.
Can any who is on a compiled from source (not stock) kernel take a look at this and provide any more information on this?

If you talk.to Chris, tell him we can hook up my phone and he can access anything needed with TeamViewer like he did when he made one of his kernels
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium

JohnCorleone said:
If you talk.to Chris, tell him we can hook up my phone and he can access anything needed with TeamViewer like he did when he made one of his kernels
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, I messaged back Chris and let him know.

Keep up the work on this cause musclehead
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium

They will likely not release it in any other form. Chances are, they stripped proprietary bits from it before release, and didn't adjust the source to make usable after doing so. Its basically up to developers to fix it in this case.
If this is case, which I'm sure it likely is, as I've had conversations with Samsung about these types of things before, there really is no recourse other than someone stepping up and fixing the source. Samsung isn't required to release proprietary bits, and they're also not obligated to release source code that builds and boots the device right out of the box.
Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App

jt1134 said:
They will likely not release it in any other form. Chances are, they stripped proprietary bits from it before release, and didn't adjust the source to make usable after doing so. Its basically up to developers to fix it in this case.
If this is case, which I'm sure it likely is, as I've had conversations with Samsung about these types of things before, there really is no recourse other than someone stepping up and fixing the source. Samsung isn't required to release proprietary bits, and they're also not obligated to release source code that builds and boots the device right out of the box.
Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes no sense, as the "proprietary bits" are the changes that are made to the kernel that fall outside of the vanilla kernel that google releases. You're saying those changes dont have to be released makes no sense. Otherwise everyone would just be re-releasing the same stock kernel that google puts out. All changes to the kernel made outside of whatever comes stock MUST be released according the to the GPL. So it doesnt matter what conversations you may or may not have had with whatever Samsung personnel. All that needs to be provided in this case is the differences in what we have and what they released. If a non-disputable change is found and easily comparable, then they have no legal choice.

[Q] [DEV Q] Where I can find HTC Desire sources,if any?

Title says it all. If you don't have full sources,can you tell me what GB HTC Sense devices got them? Thank you

OK, this thread is very disturbing...!

This 3d will be moved in Q/A section.
That's not the right place to ask.
Anyway, GB kernel source can be found at htcdev.com

Only kernel and core android is subject to gpl. This means you can download HTC kernel and android source code but you cannot download HTC android source code as its proprietory
Sent from my HTC Desire using xda premium

ciaox said:
can you tell me what GB HTC Sense devices got them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wait what? Are you asking which devices has the desire source code?
That seems very odd and I doubt very much that any DEVICES will have desire source code laying around..

Questions or Problems Should Not Be Posted in the Development Forum
Please Post in the Correct Forums and Read THIS
Moving to Q&A

lufc said:
Questions or Problems Should Not Be Posted in the Development Forum
Please Post in the Correct Forums and Read THIS
Moving to Q&A
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry. I was supposed to send a PM to some mod to move it,but I couldn't. I had to go out.
mortenmhp said:
wait what? Are you asking which devices has the desire source code?
That seems very odd and I doubt very much that any DEVICES will have desire source code laying around..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Learn reading I mean which HTC Sense devices got Sense sources,not desire. It doesn't take much to understand what you're reading
rootSU said:
Only kernel and core android is subject to gpl. This means you can download HTC kernel and android source code but you cannot download HTC android source code as its proprietory
Sent from my HTC Desire using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you.
Terepin said:
OK, this thread is very disturbing...!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are disturbing too

i presume your trying to build a htc rom with sense from source. If so this is impossible as sense is not open source, all sense roms are modified stock roms or ports of stock roms for other htc devices. An aosp rom can be compiled from source but not directly for the desire you must compile for another supported device, nexus one is the closest to the desire. Then you must swap the kernel for a good desire one. Then you must add desire drivers, which i am trying to find myself currently. Cyanogen can be compiled from source for the desire

Learn reading I mean which HTC Sense devices got Sense sources,not desire. It doesn't take much to understand what you're reading
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously when you're the one writing, apparently it is.. here is what the above sentence would look like in english:
Learn to read. What I meant to say was, "which HTC devices has got the HTC sense source?" I didn't mean desire source even though that was what i wrote. It doesn't take too much effort to understand what you're reading.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Had to add quite a few words, but this reflects what I, the general reader, understood from your sentence after quite some effort..
Also you start out by asking for HTC desire sense source-code, which a quick search would have told you is unavailable, and then you ask which devices have this before-mentioned source. In no way did you indicate that you weren't still looking for the desire Source in other devices..
Additionally I'd like to specify, that source-code is the raw coding, which is compiled into software capable of running on our devices. meaning that what is shipped on phones doesn't contain source-code as such but a version of the compiled software for this specific device so no there is absolutely no HTC devices containing this software. And finally the HTC sense source-code is proprietary and as such it'll never leave HTC's development department.

mortenmhp said:
Seriously when you're the one writing, apparently it is.. here is what the above sentence would look like in english:
Had to add quite a few words, but this reflects what I, the general reader, understood from your sentence after quite some effort..
Also you start out by asking for HTC desire sense source-code, which a quick search would have told you is unavailable, and then you ask which devices have this before-mentioned source. In no way did you indicate that you weren't still looking for the desire Source in other devices..
Additionally I'd like to specify, that source-code is the raw coding, which is compiled into software capable of running on our devices. meaning that what is shipped on phones doesn't contain source-code as such but a version of the compiled software for this specific device so no there is absolutely no HTC devices containing this software. And finally the HTC sense source-code is proprietary and as such it'll never leave HTC's development department.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you. But,I googled sense sources but found only kernel ones,so was asking here.

Ye it might have required some more extensive reading than the Google search overview page.. But when you choose to skip this step and go ahead and ask the forum, you'll want to put quite a bit more effort into formulating the question properly. Especially if English isn't your native language.

Grief about Upload.to

Guys, what is the purpose statement of XDA Developers? I am asking that because I figure that the purpose should be within the lines of providing end users most enjoyable smart phone, technology, gadget experience, keeping the users up-to-date about news and developments in the same arena, etc etc...
I am a Sony Xperia user and, sadly, due to the fact that we live in the United States, we are banned from using some of this end product. This product is Cyanogenmod, that is being developed by an "FXP" team that purposely chose a media sharing website that blocks IPs from the US. I did nothing to be a part of this political debacle but I can't enjoy Cyanogenmod anymore. We are also banned from mirroring this end product, is this something XDA or CM would approve?
Some of you might see me as moaning about the issue but I don't know where to go, how to ask for help because I should not be banned from using Cyanogenmod just because some development team has a political agenda. I would like to hear opinions and advice ...

As I recall, the ONLY rule of CyanogenMod is Don't ask for ETA's, not "don't ask for working download links", not "don't mirror files". We should not be forced to download through any other means than a working link. we should not have to download 3rd party software that we do not want in order to use the product.

What is the official tie between CM and FXP? Right now I am not able to use CM due to FXP, what does CM have to say about it? Do they know that FXP is banning the US users? (Technically, FXP is banning US users by uploading the product on a website that bans US IPs)

That may just be a team producing a version of the CM rom. Have you checked the CM site and see if a version of the rom is there?

If a dev requests that no mirrors should be posted, then they're within their rights to do so, as far as XDA is concerned.
As far as CM is concerned, I have no idea.

Bushmaster78FS said:
Right now I am not able to use CM due to FXP...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No-one's stopping you from getting ahold of the source code compiling it yourself.
But even if you did, the only reason CyanogenMod ROMs are a reality for the 2011 Xperia range is because of the work of the FreeXperia team, so you'd still owe them thanks.

zelendel said:
That may just be a team producing a version of the CM rom. Have you checked the CM site and see if a version of the rom is there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't yet, I browsed around CM forums for different things before, but I will register there and try to find out. From what I understand at the Xperia arc forums, FXP is the team that does serve Xperia series phones with CM work. There are of course different devs that use the CM or Sony ROMs as a base for their own work, but FXP is the one that ports the CM for Xperias, I could be wrong, I will find out.

the_scotsman said:
If a dev requests that no mirrors should be posted, then they're within their rights to do so, as far as XDA is concerned
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So technically it would be against XDA rules to post a mirror? I just don't want to cross the line with XDA, and frankly I don't give a hoot what FXP thinks. I have seen so many users just complaining and complaining about not being able to download. I can grab the ROMs whatnot from friends overseas, but I also want to help those who can't. So I would assume a private mirror should not be a violation of XDA rules.

Step666 said:
No-one's stopping you from getting ahold of the source code compiling it yourself.
But even if you did, the only reason CyanogenMod ROMs are a reality for the 2011 Xperia range is because of the work of the FreeXperia team, so you'd still owe them thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not trying to start a debate here or I am trying to be a smartass. I know very well that FXP's work is not the only one I can use with my phones. If I could compile a ROM myself, then I would not have started this thread, so your point is moot. I am just concerned about a ton of users being blocked from using Cyanogenmod, something that doesn't belong to FXP if I understood correctly, for what reason? And I am basically trying to find out how to get around this nonsensical limitation imposed on us without bugging XDA. Anyone would agree that a smart phone user would need XDA in general more than any specific dev team.

If a Dev says not to mirror their work and you do then you will be breaking XDA rules.

zelendel said:
If a Dev says not to mirror their work and you do then you will be breaking XDA rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even if it is done privately?

Bushmaster78FS said:
I am not trying to start a debate here or I am trying to be a smartass.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the future, it would be advisable to use more diplomatic language then.
Accusing FXP of stopping you from using CM when they're the only reason it exists doesn't give the best impression.
Bushmaster78FS said:
I am just concerned about a ton of users being blocked from using Cyanogenmod...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fact that certain download sites are blocked by the US government is hardly the fault of FXP nor is it a matter that XDA have any control over.
If you want to complain to someone, contact your Senator or Congressperson.
Anyway, this entire thread is now moot as FXP have kindly taken the time to respond to this matter already:
FXP said:
you can always download cyanogen roms from cyanogen website
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Step666 said:
In the future, it would be advisable to use more diplomatic language then.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is indeed what I was trying to convey knowing otherwise would earn me a ban, but my tone is out of frustration, I am not trying to offend anyone really.
The fact that certain download sites are blocked by the US government is hardly the fault of FXP nor is it a matter that XDA have any control over.
If you want to complain to someone, contact your Senator or Congressperson.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, but US didn't block the current upload website, they did block US in protest of MegaUpload (which is something I learned from the net of course) I have no interest in the politics of it, but I am suffering from it.
Anyway, this entire thread is now moot as FXP have kindly taken the time to respond to this matter already:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree and I got my answer.

Workaround:
Go to daveproxy.co.uk
Copy>Paste the CM URL
Go, and allow scripts cookies and stuff
download
???
profit

I tried that one and many other proxies as well. I can go all the way to the start link but then ul.to says all servers busy, register for premium... My friend overseas doesn't have this problem.

HTC-One X Kernel Source!!

The One X is out for couple of weeks, BUT they still haven't published the Kernel source!!
With my HTC desire 2 years ago, We had exactly the same problem. They didn't published the kernel source.
We did spam them with emails about the kernel source, and within 1 week they did publish the source files on htc dev.
I was thinking to do the same thing to speed up the releasing process.
What do you guys think?
WE GOT IT!
http://htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads
Now, Lets the Soff Begin.
Maybe we could start a Bounty donation topic to speed the process!

I'm down.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda premium

I think people have already been putting some pressure on them to do it, but we should definitely all be emailing them to make sure the kernel source comes out quickly, especially now the LTE version of the handset has been launched.
Sent from my One X using XDA

Damn, I read the title and I thought it was going to say the Kernel source has been released
But, Speculation is that they're not going to release the kernel source until they've ironed out the Kinks, but might aswell keep pestering them.

TommUK said:
Damn, I read the title and I thought it was going to say the Kernel source has been released
But, Speculation is that they're not going to release the kernel source until they've ironed out the Kinks, but might aswell keep pestering them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats just good logic on HTC half, if they let it out the Devs will beat HTC to fixing stuff and that will look bad on them.
i believe they still have around 50 days left.

Please change the title, it's VERY misleading.
But yeah, putting pressure on them could help speed up the process. Have HTC said anything about when the source will be released or have they not said anything about it yet?

I can see the point but they will release it eventually, they are required by law to do so. I'm not up for putting pressure on them to do anything right now, I'm gonna give them space to iron out bugs before I get involved in trying to force them to get distracted by anything else.

They have 90 days after realising the device so plenty of time for them.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA

farnsbarns said:
I can see the point but they will release it eventually, they are required by law to do so. I'm not up for putting pressure on them to do anything right now, I'm gonna give them space to iron out bugs before I get involved in trying to force them to get distracted by anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think one thing excludes the other. I may be mistaken, but I think that releasing the kernel source does not requeire too much work from HTCs developers team.

gyako said:
I don't think one thing excludes the other. I may be mistaken, but I think that releasing the kernel source does not requeire too much work from HTCs developers team.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Requires no more effort than clicking a button to upload them to a server and make a link on the website.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium

Just spam them on Twitter, @htc @htcdev

flakz0r said:
Just spam them on Twitter, @htc @htcdev
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wont make a difference they have to by law release within 90 days of release, we just have to wait.

treebill said:
wont make a difference they have to by law release within 90 days of release, we just have to wait.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah i know but every company hates bad publicity

gyako said:
I don't think one thing excludes the other. I may be mistaken, but I think that releasing the kernel source does not requeire too much work from HTCs developers team.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if you think it won't take up the time of the lead devs, bureaucrats and technical decision makers if a group of people is pressuring them to release the kernel and that these aren't the same people who are working on bug fix releases. I run a company which, among other things, does linux server development and web development/server side scripting and I can tell you for sure that while the act of making it available, in itself, is not a big task is really isn't as simple as you make it sound. My operation is small fry compared to HTC, this just adds to the bureaucracy. Also, the infrastructure and resources are a consideration too. Just my outlook of course.

itchy67x said:
They have 90 days after realising the device so plenty of time for them.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What 90 days? They should have released the source the minute the devices hit the shelves - no later.
They are well overdue.
---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------
farnsbarns said:
Well, if you think it won't take up the time of the lead devs, bureaucrats and technical decision makers if a group of people is pressuring them to release the kernel and that these aren't the same people who are working on bug fix releases. I run a company which, among other things, does linux server development and web development/server side scripting and I can tell you for sure that while the act of making it available, in itself, is not a big task is really isn't as simple as you make it sound. My operation is small fry compared to HTC, this just adds to the bureaucracy. Also, the infrastructure and resources are a consideration too. Just my outlook of course.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is there to consider? All this decision making is taking place before the binaries are pushed to the customer. After that, there is no way not to publish the source code. There is nothing to be done other than package the whole tree (possibly excluding binary bits) and publish it.
By delaying it, they are in direct violation of the GPL. Every bit that is downloadable or obtainable from HTC at any moment in binary should also be immediately available in source.

zvieratko said:
What 90 days? They should have released the source the minute the devices hit the shelves - no later.
They are well overdue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The gpl requires them to release within 90 days
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium

Woah, a law? Why?
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium

Nubzori said:
Woah, a law? Why?
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything needs law now lol so long ad HTC do their job with 90 the man is happy
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium

zvieratko said:
What 90 days? They should have released the source the minute the devices hit the shelves - no later.
They are well overdue.
---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------
What is there to consider? All this decision making is taking place before the binaries are pushed to the customer. After that, there is no way not to publish the source code. There is nothing to be done other than package the whole tree (possibly excluding binary bits) and publish it.
By delaying it, they are in direct violation of the GPL. Every bit that is downloadable or obtainable from HTC at any moment in binary should also be immediately available in source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The GPL has many loopholes, and HTC could easily use them, Not that they will.
but no they are not in direct violation....not for another 2 month's in fact.

http://htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads
You guys mean the 1.29.XXX, right ?