Database Users

Support Cyanogen and the cause, read further

(Note posting in this topic as to dev category for obvious reasons)
This whole incident has taken me by surprise with the actions of Google against Cyanogen. Now the actions from my understanding so far are likely the result of the early release of the Market app with his new Donut based releases. There is a valid argument for Google in which it is their own proprietary code in which they want to release on their terms I would assume, however I prefer to take the side of the community. The community around XDA has supported and nurtured the development of the Android OS and the devices based upon it, with the developers pushing the limits on what they can do and implementing smarter and better solutions. We the community in a sense become beta testers for the latest and greatest Android has to offer, how many applications do you think have already added support for 1.6 due to Cyanogen's mods and our feedback?
In summary, I believe while Google does have a valid argument against, but it would better serve them to not continue with this course of action. I invite you all to write and use all social networks available to you to spread the world, submit to every news site, raise awareness of the problem. Don't waste your time with petitions, just spread the word, go viral with it.
Digg search for cyanogen:
http://digg.com/search?s=cyanogen
Original article:
http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/
Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=144634407186&ref=nf
Send tweets to @google also, flood the information stream.
Email the people at Engadget, Slashdot, Gizmodo, all the major blogs just to keep focus upon it.

Someone should put it up on reddit too, get some visibility on wired.com!

Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.

wont that person then be "under-fire"?

gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if the person gets caught.

tool to extract non free files and create a update image
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?

lbcoder said:
Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.

You, are an IDIOT.
What happens when you *assume*? I'm sure that if you are, in fact, a law student (as you imply yourself to be, though you really only call yourself a "student" of the law, which could mean that you simply watch CNN from time to time), that this would have been answered on the first day of your first class.
Cyanogen's license *IS EXACTLY* the same as the license granted to *ALL OTHER USERS*. You want to read it? Its in your phone under About Phone --> Legal Information --> Google legal. Until you have read and understand *it all*, you should immediately cease offering your suggestions.
Edit: I just noticed your post count... 3.
Amazing, the audacity of some people. Whenever things start to get beyond the understanding of the average, all the chicken-littles come out from the woodwork and start crying about how evil the big company is. It is a direct function of a lack of understanding of the issues.
My advise: FORGET ABOUT IT. This has nothing to do with you and most likely won't have any (significant) impact on your life. At worst, you will have to add ONE SMALL STEP to the process of flashing the latest modrom.
Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL! IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! Your phone is NOT about to catch on fire or start spying on you.
Oh, and for you information: regarding how I know what Cyanogen's license was....
1) the fact that it is included with the phone.
2) the fact that he received a c&d order (which they wouldn't send if he was licensed, or if they had, it would be the simplest matter to resolve).
3) the fact that he said so himself.
designerfx said:
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At this point we're talking warez, and though I won't advocate warez, when was the last time you saw Ahmed Ahmed Ahmed from Iran get persecuted for distributing warez?
Remember that the US government can't even find Bin Laden....
Or the apps can be pulled by the users from *legitimate* images, like ADP1. This, at least, is legal for owners of ADP1's for use on ADP1's.
Frankly, adding a step to complicate the process would probably go at least a little way in getting the super-noobs out of the game. They get *really* annoying.
Oh FYI: I got that board you sent me more-or-less cleaned up now, going to start mapping it out soon.

setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. It is incredibly simple.
unzip (official-update.zip) /path/to/file1toextract /path/to/file2toextract ... /path/to/filentoextract
zip -g (mod-rom-update.zip) /path/to/file1extract /path/to/file2extract ... /path/to/filenextract
java -jar testsign.jar (mod-rom-update.zip)
Then just copy file to /sdcard/, recovery, flash, done.

Yeah, I know that us modders will continue to be doing the same thing and continue on, I know they aren't going after the entire community. It was for distributing the new Market app before its release as I understand currently. Hell, all I would do I an adb pull from a rom and push it into a new release. Just like I will be doing with the Market app if he can't put it in another release haha.
However the point of this thread was not to see if Google had the right to do that, they did. It is that simple. It is their proprietary code that was released early, by cyanogen, but I think it is unnecessary. The point of it was to support cyanogen for more ideological reasons, this community pushes the development at a rapid pace. My Dream would have been a nightmare without the likes of JF, haykuro, cyanogen, Dude, etc. With cyanogen releasing Donut in his builds, our community has been pushing developers to up their support to it and fix bugs relating to 1.6 before it is pushed as an update. The same thing with the Market app applies, how many of those apps have screenshots already? Why alienate the true heart of the device, we are basically beta testers for those of us running experimental roms. I understand the Google position, I just wish they would see that no harm, no foul.
And don't equate the amount someone posts to the boards to their understanding of a situation. There are quite a few people that just get the ROMs, run them and can use a search button if they have problems.

holy cow batman, flame much? Some people lurk for a long time before registering such as I.
I agree it's a small issue, and cyanogen is probably already working on it at least based off of his twitter. However, it doesn't matter what you or I feels about the licensing, nor even what the courts would interpret were it to get to that point.
It however, is very inappropriate to be ad hominem and/or bar threatening to people over this issue, basically getting worked up yourself. Honestly, playing seniority and insulting my schooling? I was not trying to be threatning to you, simply pointing out that you are not a spokesperson for interpreting a software license. Really, it's like you went into an emotional rage the minute cyanogen got the C&D.

Cyanogen in trouble
I can't believe Google is pulling this crap. I can only hope that Google is smart enough to work something out with Cyanogen so he may continue to share his awesome developments. I would expect some restrictions, but they need to work with him and let him do his thing. Otherwise, where's the incentive for anyone else following in his footsteps to make programs better for Google?

setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe this is the answer?
cyanogen : And regarding the keep-proprietary-apps-on-device-for-custom-rom install, with all the odexing and resource id mismatches... Ugh.​http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/4384352484

[A THOUGHT] Copying in an Open Community

Android is open. That's why I have my Samsung Galaxy S, my Nexus One and my Sapphire.
I have these phones because the open community can do better than the professionals, and I am proud to be a member of a community that has recently hacked Froyo onto the G1, Android2HD2 (and other Winmo devices), created great skins and themes, rooted almost every droid to date, hacked google navigation to work in other countries etc etc etc.
There is amazing work being done is this community.
Kingklick was able to put out a lot of ROMs which satisfied a lot of people. Contributors to Cyanogenmod (disclaimer. notably not Cyanogen himself) and others (fans and friends - disclaimer. note lack of word fanboys - of cyanogenmod, disclaimer. plus some others too) have flamed and flamed away about Kangklick (notably via twitter - I have stopped following any of those jerks that clogged up my feeds with what could've - screw that - should've been settled MUCH more privately..I followed you guys for dev news or the occasional interesting insight into your real life, not your petty bickering, but you have every right to post what you like...hence why I stopped following you all, I didn't flame you...note 'bigger man').
Rule 12 of XDArules clearly states that using the work of others must be done with permission, independent of whether it is open source or not. If this is not upheld then the post will be bought down, it does not say the user will be banned. I would understand the formality of taking the post down and requesting Kingklick reposts the ROM with due credit, but I believe - note believe...implies opinion - that moderators may have been influenced by pressure from other (high ranking, public eye) members and thus did not adhere to normal or just (I do not know if not giving creds is normally treated in this way, but you will discover I believe it shouldn't be) protacol. Kingklick broke the rules of XDA, but then again I see his banning as the least contentious issue here.
I believe that members of the XDA community in the public eye (ie with large Twitter follower base) due to their work via XDA (no matter what you say, cyanogenmod may be based at its own domain, but it still posts at XDA to maintain its public profile and feed of the massive XDA userbase, and is hence in part bound by this) have a responsibility to follow the rules of XDA on XDA rules and disputes. I do not think this is something which can be policed ('I'm banning you Wes for Trolling Kingklick...on Twitter'... not gonna work) but I think it is a moral obligation (anyone that thinks the internet is not bound by morality should take a reality check...the reason why we have open source is essentially ethics).
Do we give credit to Linus Torvalds every time we distribute linux kernels or work to do with linux? Do we give credit to those that helped him create this base? Do we give credit to Google for creating Android? HTC? Our carriers? Martin Cooper for inventing the mobile phone and cell networks? Time Berners-Lee for inventing the internet, giving rise to this forum, Google and thus the Phones/Devices we love and use? The fact is we don't give credit where due (although you may say its obscure to thank these people, they DO deserve our thanks). None of the ROM chefs/coders give all credit where due, but a lot do in part, with those directly involved. But who still thanks the original rooters?
Kingklick has been declared a copier by the jury...I haven't delved through the evidence to confirm this...but shouldn't we be much more relaxed about copying in general? All users should be open about their work with Android, but they are not. If kingklick based a build off Cyanongenmod, and gave due credit for that, he would be called unoriginal, despite his attempts to make improvements. I also believe that there should be transparency, a log of all complaints of interest and the community told in a statement from the mods why someone was banned...at least in part (keeping gory details to themselves thank you very much).
Donations are generally given by 'end-users'...noobs who can flash and maybe do some work on the builds but their contributions are limited. End users generally want user experience, and reward devs with commendation and donations. If kingklick does work on a build which satisfies more users and he hence gets donations, is that stealing donations? No. The original dev works on an open source project knowing that their work is open, but the end user can reward as he/she likes. Perhaps kingklick developed his following due to his branding...he did always use words like FAST and STABLE and SMOOTH, but Apple do the same and they're not banned from trading despite the hyperbole.
I do not doubt that a lot of devs thanks fellow devs with donations. Cyanogen is well known for donating, as is kingklick, however a lot of donations come from end users, and if kingklick replaces a few files using winrar (something which I generally contest, I believe kingklick does a lot of great work) and that satisfies more end users by being fast and stable and smooth (or perceived as being so thanks to branding) then he can get donations for that, they are a gesture of satisfaction and goodwill.
Kingklick was immoral by not giving true credit, however I believe that he could have been warned and asked to give credit once he got back from his night out (whether that excuse, or what ever his actual excuse was, was true).
I also laugh at the accusation that kingklick does not fill a niche within the 'open'/'free' community. This should not result in grudges and flame wars, whether it is true or not. Kingklick did fill a niche in my opinion: reviewers (and consumers) see vanilla android as being sterile. Hell it is sterile, and it's never going to be as successful as others if it doesn't sort this out. Cyanogenmod and other big names are based off this sterile form of Android, but they don't delve into Sense UI and other alternative skins, mainly due to preferences or copyright problems etc, not that that stops them with other things. Kingklick did work with these and he filled his niche by delivering great, fast, usable roms of these whilst others sneered at them for being inefficient coding or whatever...geeky snobbery.
Kingklick also delivered various fixes and things which other groups did not. I won't list all of these and I am sure representatives of Cyanogenmob et al will say 'we were gonna fix these issues anyways' or 'that's redundant' or 'that was patchy code', but kingklick has contributed. Obviously we have to hold ethics above output, we can not say that 'his holiness' (inteneded to mock those who believe cyanogen alone is a god, not cyanogen himself) Cyanogen's contributions to android exempt him from following conduct, but we do a great job of driving away good developers with flaming and telling tales. Perhaps you'll say kingklick was not a good developer, Drizzy, even Haykuro etc etc, but I only flashed Cyanogenmod on my Nexus once and I didn't like it for various reasons (personal preference yada yada) but I kept going back for more kingklick...whether that's perceived speed and branding etc or just satisfaction.
King's desire roms are great, but we never mobbed, trolled and banned the poor guy for not giving creds to HTC. Surely the morality of our community using software like Rosie on the Nexus is more ethically questionable than a fellow member of XDA's work, since HTC is a firm which employs people. I bought a Nexus over the Desire because I knew I could still have Sense and a bigger dev community, however the cost included in the Desire which goes to the developers of Sense is hence forgone (perhaps indeirectly, I don;t know HTC internal funding); therefore I have - and anyone who has ever flashed a Sense ROM or devved with Sense - indirectly caused loss of welfare for people who rely of developing as their source of income, tehir families, communities and economies. Surely that is less ethical than not saying thank you, but XDA has no problem with that. Perhaps it is too small to notice, but it will have an indirect impact nonetheless.
Yes kingklick should've said his please and thank you, but I think it's community hyped double standards, pretensical courtesy (not that I wouldn't give creds, it's just that pleases and thank yous are nice, but not actually useful). A wise man once said 'there is no threshold for immorality', just because kingklick did a larger 'crime' than the rest of the community in not giving his thanks out, that does not exempt the other rule breakers (ie everyone), it just means their punishment should be less severe...we choose to ignore it because it's less direct or forgotten about.
In conclusion, I think we should start a 'contributors to Android' part of XDA, added to by mods or specifically appointed members of the community (like the portal). This could be informative and could mean that forgotten about contributors could not be forgotten, but their contributions immortalised in the open community of Android. Even if the contributions become redundant, they are the foundations for the next chapter in the Android story.
Finally. www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is a very good read..and think about what AOSP stands for (I'll give you a clue...Android Open Source Project!). Can you steal what is open? What right have others to dictate what can and cannot be distributed in the open aspects of Android code (ie the underlying OS and vanilla UI...I'm not confused with Apps). Perhaps kingklick was guilty of plagiarism? But so is anyone that claims they worked really hard in that kernel without crediting Linus and leaving a donation link to his family or favourite charitable causes. Anyone that says I've reworked the UI without giving credits to The Astonishing Tribe for the original Android concepts which all UIs are based off...
Android is closed, that's why I question this 'community'.
I am not proud to be a member of this 'community'...right now.
Ps. Cyanogenmob was originally a typo (using words like mobbed in my piece...Freudian slip on the keyboard rather than fat finger syndrome)...but I kept it in as I thought it was funny...the Cyogenmob should replace team douche IMHO!
Pps. Originally posted in Android Dev general but moved here as its Nexus dev themed!

im proud of myself for actually completing this reading haha. interesting read though.

cheddie said:
im proud of myself for actually completing this reading haha. interesting read though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im more proud of you for successfully quoting the entire thing...I might submit it for my dissertation next year

HazzBazz said:
Im more proud of you for successfully quoting the entire thing...I might submit it for my dissertation next year
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahah thanks for bringing that to my attention. had to edit it lol

To be fair I posted the god darn epic rant/essay/post...my bad !

HazzBazz said:
To be fair I posted the god darn epic rant/essay/post...my bad !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I posted it! I worked long and hard last week to write it out. I am accepting donations to cover my time spent though.

All this happens because altruism is evil in the sense that it is a lie. Altruists demand payment too, in the form of recognition, appreciation, respect, reputation, and all these similar thirst for prestige.
In NOT giving recognition to comrades In arms who share a common need for prestige, it is theft among kin, robbing prestige.
Prestige is indeed a rotten currency.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

Touche...topical. Doesn't really do anything against my points, I am saying kingklick is guilty among many but they are appeased because they haven't got flames burning them. I do believe that kingklick should always give credit where due.

caysman said:
All this happens because altruism is evil in the sense that it is a lie. Altruists demand payment too, in the form of recognition, appreciation, respect, reputation, and all these similar thirst for prestige.
In NOT giving recognition to comrades In arms who share a common need for prestige, it is theft among kin, robbing prestige.
Prestige is indeed a rotten currency.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...the fact is cyanogenmod wouldn't be as big with as many great ethusiastic devs without the praise it got...but is that a fair compromise for contributions...

I really think that the issue is the same as black droid. The Problem isn't that king copied the rom and redistributed it. The problem is that he did so claiming that it was his work based off of CM. When in reality he downloaded a a finished copy of CM, compiled by the CM team, and then changed a few lines the build.prop, renamed it and asked for donations. I personally can't see how that is helping the community at all. I really don't care about King one way or the other but I do think that the people who do the work should get credit for it. They spend countless hours writing code for us to have for FREE. Code you yourself says is better than what google puts out. They do this in their spare time and ask for nothing but recognition. You think that is wrong? I am amazed by this. Really I am.

HazzBazz said:
Good point...the fact is cyanogenmod wouldn't be as big with as many great ethusiastic devs without the praise it got...but is that a fair compromise for contributions...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't misunderstand me. Payment is due, for sure, and payment makes our world go round, but I do wish it were not in the form of mousy prestige, rotten evil currency that it is. Money is a much better choice, but prestige seekers pretend to loathe $ probably because $ is less ambiguous.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

They do this in their spare time and ask for nothing but recognition. You think that is wrong? I am amazed by this. Really I am.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they do not explicitly ask for recognition do they? Even the great cyanogen does not do that, because once they impose recognition expressly as a mode of payment you would recognize that their asking for your adulation and love would seen a more demanding payment than asking for cash.
And also the inconvenience of the prestige seekers being more easily mistaken for all the money grabbing corporations which they demonize.
I'd make it clear that I have not wanted anything other than cyanogen's roms during my g1 days, and adulation I'd gladly pay, plus I have donated in money.
These guys made android exciting and formed PART of the inspiration for the paid android developers. It is unfortunate that the society's misconception of altruism as ' good' destroyed a lot of the language required to denounce it as the evil it actually is.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

Gr8gorilla said:
I really think that the issue is the same as black droid. The Problem isn't that king copied the rom and redistributed it. The problem is that he did so claiming that it was his work based off of CM. When in reality he downloaded a a finished copy of CM, compiled by the CM team, and then changed a few lines the build.prop, renamed it and asked for donations. I personally can't see how that is helping the community at all. I really don't care about King one way or the other but I do think that the people who do the work should get credit for it. They spend countless hours writing code for us to have for FREE. Code you yourself says is better than what google puts out. They do this in their spare time and ask for nothing but recognition. You think that is wrong? I am amazed by this. Really I am.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it was actually jubehs rom he did that with.....
@OP, Omitting credit and stealing are completely different things. kk downloaded jubehs rom and changed 5-10 files and claimed it as his own. when confronted with this, kk said he compiled it himself even though the evidence overwhelmingly pointed at the other direction. He claimed to have built it from asop, when all he did was take someones rom and change a few files. if he said he "cooked" the rom from another (even without saying who) he would have been ok. But he continued to lie after he was caught which is probably why the ban hammer was dropped.
Most of this plus the damning evidence is located in the g1 section.
Also, android does not follow the GNU licensing, it follows apache, and by default, the devs who release their material here are also released under apache. Apache allows people to see the source so they can better understand it to develop, but people who use the source to develop something from it are not required to open source their works. they are also allow to put their own terms which would include giving proper credit.
AFAIK xda mods actually work together to decide on what to do with offenders. i know thats what they did for the wrecking crew (though some mods were less fair than others -_- )
PS: i havent used cyanogen mod since like 3.6.8 before the C&D lol

The sad fact is, it takes money to live in the world today. A lot of these programmers make good money 9-5 at their day jobs. The average computer engineer spends about 100,000 dollars going to college then makes about 60-70k per year after. This is working on a salary basis probably putting 40-60 hours per week. After that they spend another 20+ writing code for us because they like to. I can completely understand the devs wanting someone who copied and renamed their work to be banned.
That would be like you taking Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire, Calling it Circle of Fire and trying to sell it as your own. You would get sued, etc. Come on people how can you defend this guy, come on really?

Tl,dr the OP.
flybyme said:
Omitting credit and stealing are completely different things. kk downloaded jubehs rom and changed 5-10 files and claimed it as his own. when confronted with this, kk said he compiled it himself even though the evidence overwhelmingly pointed at the other direction. He claimed to have built it from asop, when all he did was take someones rom and change a few files. if he said he "cooked" the rom from another (even without saying who) he would have been ok. But he continued to lie after he was caught which is probably why the ban hammer was dropped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this is true, he got what he deserved. I had a similar thing happen when I wrote a script for the iphone which gets about 75-100 downloads a day. Someone from a forum put their name on it, posted it saying they were up all night writing it and put a donation link at the bottom of their post.
When confronted, they lied and said it didn't work so they rewrote it, but a simple comparison showed the only changes made was to echo commands which displayed the author's name and some text about how to run it. They also had no clue how it worked and gave bad advice about how to use it, and there were a lot of people on that forum using it, having problems and asking questions.
I didn't really care, and I never got a penny for my work, but it forced me to think about it, and what I came up with was: what use is there in having that kind of thing around? They aren't contributing or advancing ideas, they're confusing them and possibly screwing things up.
The douche that stole my script went from "moderator" to "supermoderator" at that site. If that was your site, why would you even want to keep him around? I'm not a banhammer kinda guy, but there's no upside to allowing things like that to continue.

Im no developer, but i do see both sides of the story. But I mean this is no way to act.
[email protected] please tell your teamdouche to grow up. We all know it was someone in it that just made that name
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kingklick92
whoever made that account with MY name haha ur f****g retarded, Ill see you in court. You distribuuted MY name
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kingklick92
whether you were in the right or not.
I think credit should just be given when you use someones work just like you would want the same for your work.
Delete if not acceptable.

Oh for ****'s sake.
OP, you're being a white-knighting ninny. KK got what he deserved: "open-source" doesn't mean an eradication of common courtesy--and crediting is common courtesy. You're trying to weasel around "blah blah why don't we credit HTC and Google" which is sheer, utter, retarded straw man. We know who developed Android by implication unless you live under a rock. Not so with specific individual community contributions.
Besides, what did KK even do? All I saw in the N1 development section from him was ROMs based off other people's work slightly modified, or rubbish that never worked like his attempt to port Blur. I say good riddance. The fact that he managed to scam donations off people hardly helps his case. I'd sooner donate to the source/original contributors, not such a juvenile, plagiarizing, useless waste of oxygen.

Feeyo banned?

Apparently so, according to: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=7663719&postcount=802
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. In real life, we would call this a kangaroo court or a show trial...and these have been used in military dictatorships or autocratic governments to squash opposition.
"Distributing warez", really? We might as well ban all the developers on this forum. How many of the independent developers here actually have licenses from HTC or Qualcomm to redistribute their proprietary frameworks and libraries?...don't think there are too many.

Seeing as I banned him, and I generally dont do any rom development, what opposition would I be squashing?
Edit: Thanks for posting in the right section
Edit Edit: Let me add on by saying that in regards to your previous statement about HTC and Qualcomm, when they give us take down notices we always comply with them and we take them as they come. Same goes for the holders of the GNU GPL, we received complaints, we sought to resolve it via multiple requests, did not get a resolution, so we took the needed action. This will not be limited to Feeyo, but as far as I know right now, other Android Kernel devs provide their sources or abide by the GNU GPL guidelines.

Stericson said:
Seeing as I banned him, and I generally dont do any rom development, what opposition would I be squashing?
Edit: Thanks for posting in the right section
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed.
Not sure if you actually read the whole post, but it does mention that the decision was made my MODS. Not developers.
So your claim that the ban had some ulterior motive behind it doesn't really make sense.

theSpam said:
Apparently so, according to: xxp://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=7663719&postcount=802
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. In real life, we would call this a kangaroo courtor a show trial..and these have been used in military dictatorships or autocratic governments to squash opposition.
"Distributing warez", really? We might as well ban all the developers on this forum. How many of the independent developers here actually have licenses from HTC or Qualcomm to redistribute their proprietary frameworks and libraries?...don't think there are too many.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep I agree! And I will send an email to these companies regarding all the devs breaking these licenses distributing "warez" on this forum.
Mod edit: This was a sock puppet account of Feeyo's

theSpam said:
[snip]...
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. ... [snip]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is quite obvious is that the this poster hasn't read carefully the post he linked to.
I normally don't like supporting mods; (it's bad for my anarchistic image); but this time they have it exactly right. Well done for getting there at last.

0xlab said:
Yep I agree! And I will send an email to these companies regarding all the devs breaking these licenses distributing "warez" on this forum.
Mod edit: This was a sock puppet account of Feeyo's
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude unban my account? I am not an alt of Feeyo!!!
Mod edit: Well then Oxlab of cronosprojects who chooses to leave a public note rather than to contact the site's admin, consider this this warning the last

And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.

stinger32 said:
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true
Hope he will come back... I don´t get it, why did he close the entire Cronos Project?

stinger32 said:
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Humanoids said:
Sad but true
Hope he will come back... I don´t get it, why did he close the entire Cronos Project?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read this thread. It explains in more detail what the issue is.
And please don't be so naive to believe Feeyo's rom's are the only "good" rom's. That is a subjective perspective which differs from individual to individual. To force your view upon others is down right rude IMHO.
We can only speculate as to why Feeyo has closed the project but it is a shame when these licensing issues happen. It is typically due to the nature of western economies forcing the traditional all-rights reserved copyright laws upon everyone through mainstream culture, instead of moving towards much more community based copyleft licenses which research has shown to improve creativity and improve the rate of progress. IMHO this is an incredible shame.

btdag said:
Read this thread. It explains in more detail what the issue is.
And please don't be so naive to believe Feeyo's rom's are the only "good" rom's. That is a subjective perspective which differs from individual to individual. To force your view upon others is down right rude IMHO.
We can only speculate as to why Feeyo has closed the project but it is a shame when these licensing issues happen. It is typically due to the nature of western economies forcing the traditional all-rights reserved copyright laws upon everyone through mainstream culture, instead of moving towards much more community based copyleft licenses which research has shown to improve creativity and improve the rate of progress. IMHO this is an incredible shame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its funny you should mention that, this is EXACTLY what GPL is

Does anybody know why the Cronos Project site is offline?

mikeyd85 said:
Does anybody know why the Cronos Project site is offline?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=754401

12aon said:
Its funny you should mention that, this is EXACTLY what GPL is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed - the android forums are a great example of the creativity. Maybe i'll do a research project on it... (my uni degree final project was on copyrights/copyleft theories )

btdag said:
Indeed - the android forums are a great example of the creativity
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mwahahaha
Ya, our fixes on bugs (hex-code binary edits, framework resigns, bluetooth, etc...) are all completely legal. And everything is fine. We dont break any licenses of 3rd party companies. Ya... now... i got it. We take libcamera.so out of HTC builds and reinject them onto self-made roms.
mwahaha. cmon, this is ridiculous. We (in here) brake licenses (not all roms, but mosts), and there is nothing better to do than attacking a dev cause of a (gpl'ed) kernel* ?
I need a beer.
*which he shared with other ROM devs (as a binary !!!). The community was working, 2 other ROM's had a great kernel.

Andro1d said:
(...)
I need a beer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 or make it two Been quite a day

Andro1d said:
mwahahaha
Ya, our fixes on bugs (hex-code binary edits, framework resigns, bluetooth, etc...) are all completely legal. And everything is fine. We dont break any licenses of 3rd party companies. Ya... now... i got it. We take libcamera.so out of HTC builds and reinject them onto self-made roms.
mwahaha. cmon, this is ridiculous. We (in here) brake licenses (not all roms, but mosts), and there is nothing better to do than attacking a dev cause of a (gpl'ed) kernel* ?
I need a beer.
*which he shared with other ROM devs (as a binary !!!). The community was working, 2 other ROM's had a great kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
If HTC, the holders of the copyright to the other things you mentioned, were to issue a C&D against the site, it would be dealt with properly, as any other site would deal with it.
But I would point to a discussion I had with some of Cronos' developers today on their IRC channel, where I (and they) discussed how the lack of sources now meant they are unable to continue to work on this ROM. This lock-in, relying on one person to permit them to enjoy GPL code is what is absolutely prohibited in the GPL, and hence the requirement for the sources to be made available.
This doesn't benefit users, who are now left to pick an alternative ROM if they wish to continue to receive updates, and it doesn't benefit other developers who could have continued with any work in progress that feeyo has left behind.

pulser_g2 said:
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know the GPL.
pulser_g2 said:
But I would point to a discussion I had with some of Cronos' developers today on their IRC channel, where I (and they) discussed how the lack of sources now meant they are unable to continue to work on this ROM. This lock-in, relying on one person to permit them to enjoy GPL code is what is absolutely prohibited in the GPL, and hence the requirement for the sources to be made available.
This doesn't benefit users, who are now left to pick an alternative ROM if they wish to continue to receive updates, and it doesn't benefit other developers who could have continued with any work in progress that feeyo has left behind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack that. I dont wanna defend Feeyo,...
but if the MOD's start to force the GPL and credits, they should do it right. From NOW on... and for ALL ROMs ! If not... this (whole mess) was just 90% against Feeyo, and only 10% against a license.

Andro1d said:
I know the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently not, or you wouldn't be saying "BBBBUT HE DID SHARE THE BINARY!!!!!111oneeleven" as if that excuses it somehow.

pulser_g2 said:
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
{...}
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just tried to find the Kernel-Sources for Villain-ROM at the Site in your Signature ( {placeholderforworldwideweb}.villainrom.co.uk ). Please can you give me a hint where to search? (Without to Donate!)
Thanks,
Albert

Andro1d said:
but if the MOD's start to force the GPL and credits, they should do it right. From NOW on... and for ALL ROMs ! If not... this (whole mess) was just 90% against Feeyo, and only 10% against a license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a gesture of good faith towards the Hero xda-developers community, a mod audit of all actively distributed ROMs (akin to what is seen here) needs to be conducted in order to discover which are non-GPL compliant. This would show the community that the preceding events were not initiated by particular individuals/dev teams (with moderator support) against Feeyo and Cronos Droid for issues not encompassing the GPL.

thor2002ro's Kernel Sources

Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?

birkoffsjunk said:
Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.

ShadowXVII said:
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh... it would take all of 2 mins to upload, even just as tar/zip.
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but with each passing day it gets less and less likely.

birkoffsjunk said:
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
birkoffsjunk said:
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TBH, the branding over CWM is also annoying. My HTC Desire doesn't have any branding, nor does any other CWM Recovery that I've seen previously. I was excited above this device getting attention by Kernel developers, but it seems most will possibly be discouraged with the lack of source.
A kernel that abides by the right licence gets my vote.

I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

n1nj4dude said:
I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just inconvenient for collaboration. I want what's best for the device and it's community, really.
Everyone else releases their source, so what makes thor2002ro so special that he isn't able to? As the OP said, it wouldn't take long.
Is thor2002ro embarrassed to show his source code or something?

"It will come when it's done"

now he is developing off site for his own satisfaction, so cant say anything about xda/android gpl violation
those who want to use just use, and we cant force him to release..

first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries.
however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.

zoubidou said:
first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's released on his site?
zoubidou said:
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'd still be appreciated by the community if it was published. I'm aware it's not part of the kernel.
zoubidou said:
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries. however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Acer has a better track record at this point; http://support.acer.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=4&modelId=3851
zoubidou said:
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An example of where multiple-developer minds could help bring features to the community faster?

sure i agree, but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that. I would just suggest that you make it a common rule to be respected maybe with some exceptions if they are reasonably submitted to the admin's.
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
That's what I think but I agree that other ideas are also possible.

As far as CWM is concerned apache license doesn't require the release for the source, but would help the community maintain CWM rather than 1 person.
The kernel is another matter, the GPL is quite clear if you publish, and it has been, your required to make available the source.
Any attempt to change the license is a breach of the GPL.
I have asked repeatedly for said sources.
A user may not completely understand the importance of this, but developers do, and as a developer can thor please release his source code.

zoubidou said:
but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not hiding behind anything It's a GPL violation. It's a binary release without source.
zoubidou said:
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not wanting to argue, especially not over reasons as to "why" or "why not" it might be released. In the end, it's not released.
I'd really appreciate it if it was. I'm sure others would too.

i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.

zoubidou said:
i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only person hiding is thor :|
Please also remember the Kernel has been developing for decades by thousands of indviduals and companies worldwide, and they all comply with the GPL, why can't thor?
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, it's just the frustration in dealing with this.

Again... i bring up this link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
If you truely believe he is violating then this ^^ is all you can do...

I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!

Johnny0906 said:
I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol this ^^

@n1nj4dude yes brilliant if you know his/her real name etc, but we don't...
@Johnny0906 lol grow up
I wonder how long it will take for most to complain once their favourite ROM is removed from xda due to the Kernel violating the GPL

Whatever birkajerkoff

[Q] 3.2 is boring and lagy , how can i ''''''''''''''''''''

Hello
3.2 is lagy and boring with out root ,so which custom Rom is the fastest and most stable for the a500 that support the HDMI, TETHER ROOT , ARABIC LANGUG ,GPS ,USB STUFF , 3G DONGLE , etc

Check this thread

wlk0 said:
Check this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 / regards

wlk0 said:
Check this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks
But what about the HDMI is it working and the rotation lock

There is a rom called Thor did anyone try it
http://www.tegraowners.com/?cat=7

gab182 said:
thanks
But what about the HDMI is it working and the rotation lock
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why wouldn't that work ?

gab182 said:
There is a rom called Thor did anyone try it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is breaking GPL, and not allowed here, so no one here tried it and made positive comments on it unless they agree with breaking GPL.
breaking GPL means stealing other peoples work and takes creds for it.

Once again, the usual about the GPL. The end user really doesn't care about this debate, you know. The matter is far from settled, what you said is just the position of the XDA admins. And I can understand the forum policy of not allowing a link to Thor's site for that reason, it is their forum and their rules.
If you don't want to use Thor's mods, by all means, don't use them. If you think that linking to his site is against the rules, go ahead and report the post to the mods. But don't go on around accusing people of being thieves or pirates simply because they disagree with you on such a trivial matter.

Biologos said:
Once again, the usual about the GPL. The end user really doesn't care about this debate, you know. The matter is far from settled, what you said is just the position of the XDA admins. And I can understand the forum policy of not allowing a link to Thor's site for that reason, it is their forum and their rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The more valid version is its a "pireted" kernel.. seems silly since all that is needed to make it not pireted is making the code avalible to those that download it.
I can't stop the average user from using it.. Just like I can't stop you from downloading a movie.. You may think of the changes under fair use, I don't know (GPL does not remove any rights under fair use). But I hope the understanding that its distributed in a way not desired by the creators (of at least most of the code) is understoo.. And that linux could not be what it is without this code sharing.
Since no one is asking for money just a simple access to the source code that github will host for free.. I don't get why you want to simply accept such a pirited kernel if alternatives exist. Also as the open source dev I must strive to promote / create such alternatives.

Well, as you say, Thor's kernel may or may not fall under fair use policy. I too don't know. And I am not advocating its use, or abstaining from using it. What I do object to is calling people pirate or thief , just because they use a free mod for a free operational system. GPL or no GPL, calling someone a thief (just like you accused me of downloading movies, without any cause or basis) is just bad manners.

Biologos said:
Well, as you say, Thor's kernel may or may not fall under fair use policy. I too don't know. And I am not advocating its use, or abstaining from using it. What I do object to is calling people pirate or thief , just because they use a free mod for a free operational system. GPL or no GPL, calling someone a thief (just like you accused me of downloading movies, without any cause or basis) is just bad manners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thor is using the licence outside its licence (unless it is to be considered fair use); this is the deffinition of a software pirate like it or not.. (This is unless source code is released to those that request)
You are not a thief unless you distribute the kerel and are requested for the code: GPL says nothing about you needing the code as an end user, unless you request it, and if you have not requested and Thor has given you permission to use the kernel you are *Not* a pirate.
As for theif... Its the *AA's that call software pirate's thifs.. and much more for their own ends than people on XDA wany to discurage GPL code not released under terms of the licence.
Anyone confused about licences ought to read some..