Was the app built on top of open sourced code? Is it coming back? I've got a bad feeling, like we're not going to see a properly functioning HDMI app any time soon ...
not sure what the issue is but the official thread is here
http://forum.androidcentral.com/htc...llhdmi-official-fullhdmi-beta-discussion.html
xeren said:
Was the app built on top of open sourced code? Is it coming back? I've got a bad feeling, like we're not going to see a properly functioning HDMI app any time soon ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've gleaned the only open source stuff he modified had to do with the HDMI chip in the kernel. As far as I know he has released source to those particular bits.
He _NEVER_ has to release the source to the APK if he doesn't want to. (As more than likely it is an "in-house" effort.)
Fair & square, he did the work.
If he wants cash, he'll get it.
If he wants reputation, he'll get it.
(Although I doubt it will take people very long to see what he's doing and release an entirely free implementation IF he has in fact released the source for the kernel modifications he made. If not, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html is one click away.)
Supply and demand
EDIT: Just checked and as of 3/3/11 at 10:03 PM central time, he has _NOT_ released his kernel source modifications (gee, wonder why) and is in direct violation of the GPL.
Even androidcentral has forced him to take his links down to his "illegal" kernels.
In my opinion, this guy needs to get his act together. He's pulling a solo-Samsung and doing nothing but hurting the development community.
Here's a quick page for everyone to digest to understand what exactly he is doing that is against the GPL and its terms and could put him at the peril of a lawsuit: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2721290/propietary-modules-within-gpl-and-bsd-kernels
To sum everything up, I see one of four things happening from this current scenario:
A) He releases the source modifications, and goes on living a semi happy life that will always be plagued with people remembering his defiance to follow the GPL.
Within weeks of his modifications being released I predict another individual developer will code up some hooks to link in with his kernel modifications, and bam: Free (hopefully) HDMI output app for everyone from a past or new XDA dev, and paid app for the chumps that support GPL violators or people that truly believe what he was doing is correct.
B) He realizes that once his kernel modifications are out that his apk will be useless, so he chooses not to release the mods at all thus ending this chapter in HDMI development. (And possibly ending litigations against him that may have been initiated at the request of people notifying the GNU foundation on him. Although it is rare that they would file suit against someone not CURRENTLY taking payments for GPL'd code (note he hasn't "released it" for pay yet))
C) He pulls an nvidia/samsung with his kernel module, creating two portions. One LGPL that he releases the source to and must be compiled alongside the kernel, and he includes a binary kernel module that MAY or may not kernel panic your kernel when you attempt to modprobe it. (But I don't think he can do that as he didn't create the entire work of the HDMI driver source. The license for that particular file is GPL, so he MUST release it as far as I can see.)
There is also an option D - he mans up and releases _ALL_ of his work and is revered & cheered for being a good soul. Although he will still suffer from some discredit because of his GPL folly.
In my opinion, the only reason he is not releasing the kernel modifications is because once they are released, ANYONE will easily be able to make an apk to control the output, thus ending any form of possible revenue from this "project" for him.
My gut feeling says he intended to release the kernel modification source AFTER he had racked up some sales. (Which would have been atrociously dumb from a legal stand point)
Whew!
I have been following all of his work, and he did attempt to make the modified kernel drivers public to any kernel devs that wanted to use them and incorporate them into their kernels. Not realizing that it was a violation to modify without posting source code, he soon after voluntary removed the kernel link. He has been very busy developing his work and will release source code with all the new kernels in his next free public beta release due out very soon. If you want to know more you can read the op posted on A/C.
Sent from my mobile HDMI device
Related
I'm really getting sick and tired of waiting for HTC to release the kernel source, it's simply not on that they can release the EVO's kernel about 2 days after it's released and the Desire is still as of yet without any source code released. Stock kernels =
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/desiresrc/
I vote for starting a petition.
HTC is obliged to release the kernel sourcecode in a timely fashion when formally request under the GNU public license.
I've e-mailed them a few times about it, they gave me the run-around by saying 'oh, we can help you with that. Check developer.htc.com!'
D'oh. I hate them playing dumb.
I'd be up for signing a petition. Get one started and we can do this properly. I want overclock etc on Sense roms plz!!!
Oh and it will help us to add trackpad unlock as trackpad wake is pointless without it!!!
why wouldn't google do something about it?
after all it's their OS rite?
Just keep e-mailing them, they're legally obliged to release it.
HTC is in serious violation of copyright law at the moment by distributing the software but refusing to release source code to the kernel. An indefinite 'they'll get around to it' doesn't make it legal.
Screw a petition.
Someone needs to take them to court. Or at least send a letter with loads of legal mumo jumbo reminding them of their obligations...
Any lawyers here with a bit of spare time...if there are I'm sure we will all give in a good word when we get to heaven for you (sorry) if you can help us.
As many users as possible should report HTC http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
bradputt said:
why wouldn't google do something about it?
after all it's their OS rite?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it's not. in truth it's everybody's OS but it belongs most to Linus Thorvalds if it belongs to anyone at all
Juggalo_X said:
As many users as possible should report HTC http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best point of action.
The GPL v2 basically says that if you distribute a binary (i.e. the kernel) you must distribute with it the source code, or provide a written offer to produce the source code on request for at least three years. If you don't meet those requirements you have no right whatsoever to distribute the code, and it's blatant copyright infringement (Linux may be free of charge, but it's copyrighted code).
Someone write to them with that information and request it then
Also right here
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
The more bad press and and the more GPL type calls they get from other organizations will force them to comply with the GPL or be sued so i say we all get on it. The more users who report the more HTC gets the pressure put on. This is getting rediculous. The Incredible and the Evo had the source out with in hours of the RUU release.
Maybe if someone could write a simple piece of text on here that we could "copy and paste" maybe that would help for the links to GPL violations?.
I am all up for putting a complaint in but i wouldnt have a clue how to word it correctly to get the desired (Excuse the pun) outcome.
Just a thought
I've e-mailed [email protected] and asked politely to make HTC release the code
Keep the mail adresses comming and we'll make sure that the problem gets acknowledged!
HTC's well aware of its legal obligation and frequently breaks the law anyway. Its EULA states:
Until the date that is three years after you acquired the Software, you
may obtain a copy of the source code corresponding to the binaries for
GPL-licensed file by sending a request to HTC customer service at www.
htc.com, and HTC will send you a link to such source code.
That's not actually satisfactory under the GPL (though most people would be happy with it in practice), but they don't actually do that. Requests are ignored or given a 'go to this site' response, where there's no code.
Users should be email HTC as well to put the pressure on.
They don't want to release source code because they don't want us to mess with the frequencies (most likely). That doesn't matter though, no matter how big you are, you still have to obey the licenses.
GPL says they have 60 days after public release of software.
So... wait until days 55-60 before pulling the torches.
They did the same thing for the nexus source.
JCopernicus said:
GPL says they have 60 days after public release of software.
So... wait until days 55-60 before pulling the torches.
They did the same thing for the nexus source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are they not supposed to supply it uppon request even though.
Hasn't it been a month since the 2.3.3 update? Where's the kernel source code? I know I'm impatient, I'm just dying for a custom kernel... Has anyone heard anything about when it will be released or how they can hold onto it for more than a month? I just thought that was one of the binding open source deals... Thanks
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Yes and root FWIW. My girl just got a brand new one and it came that way.
Sent from my world viewed in 3D with my Evo.
Just wait, it will come...
I bought my Evo 4G with 2.2. and my dumb ass hit the OTA update button and guess what?
I'm now playing the waiting game like the rest of the people stuck with an unrooted 2.3.3 phone...
He's talking about kernal source code not root u guys. By law HTC had to release this code one month after official release.
Papa Smurf151 said:
He's talking about kernal source code not root u guys. By law HTC had to release this code one month after official release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1+ true, perhaps they haven't released it because they know once they do..the phone will get rooted and bootloader might get unlocked?
someonenewhere said:
1+ true, perhaps they haven't released it because they know once they do..the phone will get rooted and bootloader might get unlocked?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Email response to support ticket
I appreciate your interest in the kernel source code for the software upgrade to Gingerbread for the HTC EVO 4G. We will typicallypublish theKernel open source code on http://developer.htc.com for recently released devices as soon as possible. HTC will normally publish this within 90 to 120 days. This time frame is within the requirements of the open source community.
If you feel you need more information about this issue, you are welcome to send us another email for further troubleshooting or you can contact the HTC Technical Support team at 1-866-449-8358 daily from 6:00AM until 1:00AM eastern.
First off, I know of no requirement that they have to release the source within 30 days. I would personally be surprised if they released the source anytime soon, as it obviously has some serious bugs right now. Just guessing, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't see the source released until after we get another update that fixes all or most of these problems.
wfrandy said:
First off, I know of no requirement that they have to release the source within 30 days. I would personally be surprised if they released the source anytime soon, as it obviously has some serious bugs right now. Just guessing, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't see the source released until after we get another update that fixes all or most of these problems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL v3 gives a 30 day grace period for the release of source upon written request. History has shown HTC is notorious for violating this.
HTC said:
Dear xxxxxxxxxx,
I understand the importance of having the source code for the Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) update for the HTC EVO 4G. I have located the GPL version 2 here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
What I beleive that you are refferencing is Section 3, Subpart A of the Terms and Conditions of the GPL version 2 license. This states that one of the options when distributing a Program is to include a copy of the Source code. I.E. to include a copy of the source code with "the complete corresponding machine-readable source code" e.g. phone.
HTC has chosen instead to go with option (Subpart) B of Section 3. This states that we can "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange."
This again, does not include any terms or conditions that require us to immediately release the source code. It clearly indicates the that the offer must be valid for up to three years and that we must "give" a copy to "any third party." It does not say that the source code must be given immediately upon request from said third party.
Section 3 of the Terms and Condtions also states that "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. "
This is again the method that we are chosing to supply the source code in. This part of the license clearly states that this distribution can be "made." HTC is currently in the process of making said distribution; that is to say writing and formating the source code (kernal) in such a way as to make it readily and easily (as is a requirement of the license) accessible from our developer website.
We are not choosing to not supply you with the source code. We are simply unable to provide it to you at this time as it is not currently in an easily accessible format.
If you beleive that the GPL entitles you to receive the source code immediately upon request, as opposed to the first available oportunity at the best of our abilities, please provide a quotation of the actual license that states that the source code must be provided immediately upon request and not just "given."
When the code is available, you will be able find it at http://developer.htc.com. I do apologize for any incovnenience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC said:
Dear xxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your response.
Please also keep in mind that the software is also under the Apache license. You can read more about why Google choose the Apache License instead of GPLv2 on the following website: http://developer.android.com/resources/faq/licensingandoss.html.
Also, I would like to escalate your issue so that you may receive a call regarding this matter. In order to do this, I will need to know a Contact number that you can be reached at, a time that you can be reached and the time zone you are currently in. I would also like to know the IMEI number of your device. This can be found by going to Home>Menu>Settings>About>Phone Identity. Once I have this information, I will be glad to send it up so that you can receive a call.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would they need this info to give me a link to the kernel?
I thought they had to release the source after 30 days where the hell is that damn thing ?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
In all honesty, the code should be there the same day the phone is available to the public.
I don't know the specifics of the GPL license well enough to know if there is a 'hardcoded' time frame (30, 60, 90days, etc) or if there is just a 'within a reasonable amount of time' statement.
GPLv2:
Code:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Yea, I'd like this source code big time, though playing the Synergy and the battery issues ive learned to really maximize my battery life and not losing much use. Thus, when the source code comes out SBC 36-48hr battery life hahaha that would be sweet!!
I believe HTC goes with the Apache licence and not the GPLv2. Either way there is no requirement for them to release the code at time of release or even 30 days. They release between 90 and 120 days. Unfortunate I know.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
tommytomatoe said:
I believe HTC goes with the Apache licence and not the GPLv2. Either way there is no requirement for them to release the code at time of release or even 30 days. They release between 90 and 120 days. Unfortunate I know.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BOOO!!! i love synergy and MikG...but the battery life SUX!!! I used to get/am getting at least 1 1/2 days with MikFroYo + netarchy's kernel and Deck's/MIUI + Tiamat. I can't wait till the finally release the kernel source so that we can get sbc kernels out and about!!!
Today on slashdot I stumbled upon an item of (potentially) considerable interest: it would seem some clever folks have succeeded in getting monitor mode to work on Android devices using certain broadcom based WiFi chipsets, including the bcm4330... They only released precompiled APKs for the Nexus One and SGS2, (which won't do us much good), but they also hosted the source on a googlecode project. SO, in theory (if I understand things correctly) all we should need is for someone with a working AOSP build environment for our phone set up to compile the code. I'm new to the dev scene and therefore highly unqualified lol, but I'm sure there are a handful of experienced devs out there with the knowhow to get this up and running!
Here's the link: http://bcmon.blogspot.com/
And the source: http://code.google.com/p/bcmon/source/checkout
This is not my work; I take no credit, just saw it hadn't been posted and thought the community might be interested. At the moment, I am trying to get a build environment set up as a learning experience. (i.e. I would love to compile CM10 from source, thought it would be a great project to get a better understanding and start doing some developing.) Although I haven't hit a wall yet (i've only just begun and still have a lot to learn), as far as I know there are no device-specific guides on how to do this for our phone...any suggestions for good reference material?
Does it seem like Google is attempting to push custom ROMs away from, or off of, their newer devices (Pixel 6 Pro)? From what I can gather reading the forums there are a lot of examples of custom ROMs that have onerous problems. But, maybe that is just the nature of the business, people tend to only post when they are having difficulties.
kcv_earner said:
Does it seem like Google is attempting to push custom ROMs away from, or off of, their newer devices (Pixel 6 Pro)? From what I can gather reading the forums there are a lot of examples of custom ROMs that have onerous problems. But, maybe that is just the nature of the business, people tend to only post when they are having difficulties.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Google cares one way or another about custom roms. I don't think they do anything with custom roms in mind.
Lughnasadh said:
I don't think Google cares one way or another about custom roms. I don't think they do anything with custom roms in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
Google does what is in their best favor, not for the niche hobbyists. Over the years, you could see the gradual move to making ROM developers lives more complicated.
Google could very easily move away from custom development if they wanted to. All they'd have to do is move to a private license and ditch the apache and gpl open source licenses and keep all source code private. This will never happen as part of the open source platform is contributions from users across the world to improve things. Technically they could release very little device specific source as well and it wouldn't be the end all.
My first phone I developed for was a Samsung Infuse 4g. Development stopped at gingerbread and Samsung never released ICS (android 4) for the infuse due to the almost complete overhaul needed. So no device source and no kernel source from Samsung. Guess what? Within a month or so myself and a few other developers had a nearly fully functional (think there was 1 or 2 very minor bugs) infuse 4g running ICS and kept going from there.
scott.hart.bti said:
Google could very easily move away from custom development if they wanted to. All they'd have to do is move to a private license and ditch the apache and gpl open source licenses and keep all source code private. This will never happen as part of the open source platform is contributions from users across the world to improve things. Technically they could release very little device specific source as well and it wouldn't be the end all.
My first phone I developed for was a Samsung Infuse 4g. Development stopped at gingerbread and Samsung never released ICS (android 4) for the infuse due to the almost complete overhaul needed. So no device source and no kernel source from Samsung. Guess what? Within a month or so myself and a few other developers had a nearly fully functional (think there was 1 or 2 very minor bugs) infuse 4g running ICS and kept going from there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those were the good ol' days. I miss those times a lot.
scott.hart.bti said:
Google could very easily move away from custom development if they wanted to. All they'd have to do is move to a private license and ditch the apache and gpl open source licenses and keep all source code private. This will never happen as part of the open source platform is contributions from users across the world to improve things. Technically they could release very little device specific source as well and it wouldn't be the end all.
My first phone I developed for was a Samsung Infuse 4g. Development stopped at gingerbread and Samsung never released ICS (android 4) for the infuse due to the almost complete overhaul needed. So no device source and no kernel source from Samsung. Guess what? Within a month or so myself and a few other developers had a nearly fully functional (think there was 1 or 2 very minor bugs) infuse 4g running ICS and kept going from there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apart from the interest Google has in open and free contributors to the code, would that be legally possible for them to privatize and "close" Android code for Pixels given it is based on Linux? Would that fit the open source license of the original Linux platform?
scott.hart.bti said:
Google could very easily move away from custom development if they wanted to. All they'd have to do is move to a private license and ditch the apache and gpl open source licenses and keep all source code private. This will never happen as part of the open source platform is contributions from users across the world to improve things. Technically they could release very little device specific source as well and it wouldn't be the end all.
My first phone I developed for was a Samsung Infuse 4g. Development stopped at gingerbread and Samsung never released ICS (android 4) for the infuse due to the almost complete overhaul needed. So no device source and no kernel source from Samsung. Guess what? Within a month or so myself and a few other developers had a nearly fully functional (think there was 1 or 2 very minor bugs) infuse 4g running ICS and kept going from there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you all for the reply to my question. The reason I brought it up was because I was looking for any LOS 19 working for the Pixel 6 Pro. I was earlier directed to this one, but dev has changed.
neelchauhan said:
I am no longer working on this ROM. A13 blocks downgrading the bootloader. If you still want this, there are developer support images to downgrade with an updated bootloader.
To add, newer LOS19 builds don't boot on raviole, even the recovery fails.
I also switched to stock A13 for the time being.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kcv_earner said:
Thank you all for the reply to my question. The reason I brought it up was because I was looking for any LOS 19 working for the Pixel 6 Pro. I was earlier directed to this one, but dev has changed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't risk trying an a12 rom if you got a13 installed.
Custom roms are dieing for sure. The people left over are un friendly the builds nearly allways have bugs hence the amount of wingers the devs get which turns the devs into rude people. Majority of them have private sources they won't share. There dodgey ****s. I attempted to build a rom and failed and couldn't get any help. Instead every rom dev will ban u if u ask for help building there rom. Telegram is a **** storm. Mods on power trips. I have given up on the scene. Let it die with wild fire.
I start understand now a crew of 5 guys will never beat a company at there game. They might apply some patches or shot before the real devs release the proper os version but it not worth the actual bugs in the frame work. Who can trust the security of a team of guys to. They can do what they like to us from messing with the os put virus in it.
fil3s said:
I wouldn't risk trying an a12 rom if you got a13 installed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As long as the A13 bootloader is installed to both slots, the worst that could happen is the firmware would run poorly.