Database Users

What is XDA policy here re Scammers who sell XDA hackers' software?

This community is so damn innovative and cooperative, it amazes me what software/ROMS get cooked here which really add a lot of productivity value to me, transforming a tedious, hard-to-read Windows Mobile User Interface into a tool that really works on the go. And I've been equally impressed by the collaborative spirit of this community in problem solving and feature tweeks.
Thus I am curious if there is an organized policy here that helps us end-users deter the scammers who grab software from XDA-developers, bundle it, and sell it across the web. I'm speaking of a prominent spot on the home page and within the information design of these forums that, just like the "Missing Kids" alerts on milk cartons, highlights prominently the latest scammers stealing work here.
I understand this forum is for actual development, but truth is this issue gets lost in "General" forums. Because it's the people who hack here who are the people being hurt directly.
Though I signed onto XDA over a year ago, and have read volumes re my T-mobile MDA and software upgrades here, I ended up being nonetheless too nervous to follow the very clear instructions posted last year with all if the various WM 6 roms developed here. And I never did upgrade.
But I have a WING now, and I wanted an iphone theme and user interface. Again I read all the sticky threads for the Herald, as well as the links from the wiki for that specific phone. After several days of trying to figure out "should I be first flashing my T-mobile ROM to a more efficient one, before then seeking to install one of the iphone themes and apps like A_C's S2U2 etc. I then did a dumb consumer thing: when searching this site using Google, I followed the links to one or two of the GOOGLE AD-WORDS hawking an iPhone theme on your PocketPC.
Long story short, I got scammed of $10 for something that was outdated and didn't even install properly on my WING... But I'd been "comforted" by the presentation on their website, http://iphonethemeforpocketpc.com , thinking I would get my head cleared of the confusion that mounts when I'd dig down deep into the many discussions of so many ROMs & themes & apps here. I got burned, that was bad enough. But it then pissed me off doubly that superior software would be found here at XDA -- and more than likely some of that guy's component cab files were simply stolen from developers right here.
I ended up back here and successfully installed the ifonz theme, A_C's S2U2 (the scam site had an old slide2unlock version... bit as everyone here knows, A_C's app is superb. I also installed Contact Manager (amazing!), PCM keyboard (what an improvement over windows), and MortPlayer (fantastic). I intend to donate to each program author.
But the purpose of this post is this: I filed a dispute with PayPal (requires login) over this scammer's non-working product and absolute refusal to even reply to my early "friendly" emails seeking install help. Went through PayPal's Resolution Center "escalation process" -- after no reply from the seller to PayPal -- and my dispute became a CLAIM for Paypal to determine outcome. PayPal's reply, denying the claim, states that they reviewed all communications and investigated the issue fully (totally not true).
I could have stopped there -- afterall i'd long ago expended way more than $10 worth of my time -- but it was for the principle of it. So I called PayPal, went through all the menu-options, screenings, and hold queues, and finally spoke to an actual Resolution Agent -- who was very nice, & actually very helpful.
However: I learned then, from her, what many of you may already know -- but I wonder DOES everyone know?, because I sure didn't... She told me that anything digital or downloadable is not even covered with any Buyer Protection as disclosed in PayPal's terms of service. So the claim got closed automatically because it didn't qualify for any dispute resolution. I was really surprised by this, that no downloadable software is subject to dispute/resolution policies -- and that's why I am writing this thread, as a service (I *hope*) to all you developers.
I first did a search here on the boards for "scams", because I wanted to find a place on this site to DISPLAY CLEARLY---> Here is a scamsite --> make sure your stuff is not being sold there. That's when I saw this sampling of threads, below, and had to wonder, is there a policy here that is clear and easy to find (NO! not that I can see!) that helps developers here by giving us end-users a place to post the hit-list of scammers on ebay, on iphonetheme websites, etc. ?
If so, I missed it in the information design here. If not, I recommend it. I know it burns you guys who are being ripped off -- but it also ticks off less-sophisticated community members like me (end-users of your hard work) to see your works exploited -- given especially their innovation and performance tweeks.
Here are just a few of the threads I found from this year, from March 08, where people reported being ripped off by people selling their works. In my view, I don't think that's enough or sufficient to just have someone start a thread saying "beware of X, Y or Z". And that's why I posted this. Thanks to all of you who make the lives of end-users more productive with your great work.
q/s
Name And Shame Ebayer Stealing Xdev Material
Bastards selling my Unlocker
Thief On The Loose At Hofo and possibly xda!

wow.. no reply. well i know i'm verbose, but i thought this would at least get a reply that explained yes/no if the site has designated a specific area to broadcast who are the current scammers operating out on he internets...
Should I be posting this into a different forum? if so, which one please/ thanks

As far as I know, there is no area warning about potential scams. There have been issues with people selling cooked roms on ebay that i'm aware of, but that normally comes up in model-specific forums.
it definitely could be helpful to have such an area on the forum, but at the same time, there have been many stickies informing people NOT to go out and sell other peoples work, and advising people against using warez and cracked programs.
Most people that have come to this forum realize there is no reason to pay for most software, as there's probably an excellent free or open source alternative. if there's not yet, someone's working on one. this forum is a mix of entusiasts, programmers, hackers, and people who just love to tweak their devices. once you come here and see the vast amounts of information, there's really no need to go anywhere else. i check the xda forums rather regularly, and pocketpcfreeware every now and again.
i don't think a scams section on the forum would help keep from people getting scammed elsewhere... they usually find this site after they've already been scammed. many of us have already taken it into our own hands, by trying to point as many people as we can here, so they can learn the beauty of free, well maintained software and roms made by people who just want to help others enjoy their devices more and more.
scammers are more like a disease... and prevention is the best medicine.

alongenemylines said:
As far as I know, there is no area warning about potential scams. There have been issues with people selling cooked roms on ebay that i'm aware of, but that normally comes up in model-specific forums.
it definitely could be helpful to have such an area on the forum, but at the same time, there have been many stickies informing people NOT to go out and sell other peoples work, and advising people against using warez and cracked programs.
Most people that have come to this forum realize there is no reason to pay for most software, as there's probably an excellent free or open source alternative. if there's not yet, someone's working on one. this forum is a mix of entusiasts, programmers, hackers, and people who just love to tweak their devices. once you come here and see the vast amounts of information, there's really no need to go anywhere else. i check the xda forums rather regularly, and pocketpcfreeware every now and again.
i don't think a scams section on the forum would help keep from people getting scammed elsewhere... they usually find this site after they've already been scammed. many of us have already taken it into our own hands, by trying to point as many people as we can here, so they can learn the beauty of free, well maintained software and roms made by people who just want to help others enjoy their devices more and more.
scammers are more like a disease... and prevention is the best medicine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There have been instances where its come to the attention of the community here and the developers of ROMS and programs that their work is being packaged and sold on ebay and the like. Obviously this behavior is viewed very negatively. While there is no policy or "organized" efforts to monitor and react, when someone does point out an instance, the community members rally around and do what they can to call the guy out, and warn potential scammees of it. Ebay is often notified directly, and also comments on the sellers postings on ebay are made to warn.
And yes, your post is verbose

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

[Q] close xda

*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.

I can't believe someone would post a thread like this after what has happened... Facepalm...

dont know said:
*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice try except Sense isn't warez. Anyone using a phone made by HTC has a license to use Sense. The -only- dubious ROMs are ROMs for phones that contain sense when the phones never had sense released on them by HTC, such as the Nexus One. In which case you raise a good point and instead of attempting to incite -another- flame war in regards to Feeyo, you should report those rom posts to the moderators.
I'm personally surprised and pleased XDA have started to take a harder stance on adherence to licenses. You have to look at it from their perspective too, XDA is a popular site and they don't need various license owners breathing down their necks from a legal standpoint, with XDA being a large distribution node for software.
Feeyo could have easily avoided all this. I actually thought the staff had closed the issue with a slapped wrist. All he had to do, was uphold agreements he made in regards to licensing when he chose to use software under the GPL. He didn't and thus only has himself to blame. I understand you being somewhat blinded by your fanboy spectacles, but try and see it in a bigger picture. If ever developer took Feeyo's attitude to redistributing GPL source code back into the community, we'd all still be sat on some crappy HTC ROM with an ancient and buggy kernel. Cyanogenmod project certainly wouldn't exist and projects like Feeyo's would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
He was happy to take the benefits of the GPL. He should have been happy to give back as a result of taking those benefits. He wasn't, he didn't now he's banned.
He has been a walking GPL violation since day one. Not -once- has he offered or posted sources to GPL code that he uses. Not -once- has he even bothered to mention the GPL license to any of his users, which he is also required to do, so that they're aware that they're protected by the GPL. Look at the page/wiki for his Linux distribution. Not a single mention of the GPL and not a single link to the source code despite practically every package being protected under the GPL.
If you cannot understand why it is imperative for the GPL to be adhered to in order for it to work and for EVERYONE to benefit from it, if your vision stops at "me have awesome ROM on phone" and goes no further, well then you shouldn't really be posting on the subject in the first place.
Feeyo was so abusive of the community aspect to Android development, he even used a shadow account to ask questions of other developers, before releasing his "wonderful and all his own work" as Feeyo and not once did he credit anyone who helped him out.
Regardless of his development talent, he was still a bad seed and ultimately bad for the community.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=716916

Hi, don't know thank you for posting in the wrong section.
If we get complaints from HTC about those, you better believe that we will. I guess you must have missed the meaning of General Public License there, you must have spotted the word public in there, which means we have to take complaints serious. We did, this will ultimately create a healthier development environment, but I guess you'd rather have a new build then one thats fair. Feeyo is welcome to post his ROMs once more 30 days from now, if he would share the sources as required by GPL.

XDA operates a non-invasive policy with regard to such matters. To quote from HTC
"While HTC tries to take a hands off [approach] about the modder / ROM chef community, this site's sole purpose [is] to make HTC's content available for download from a source other than HTC. That content is not just the open source parts and kernels of Android but all of the software that HTC itself has developed. This is a clear violation of our copyrights and HTC needs to defend itself in these cases."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was in response to ShippedROMs being asked to stop hosting RUUs of unreleased ROMs.
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.

Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD

C0mpu13rFr34k said:
Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.

pulser_g2 said:
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...

Guys, why even bother?
A decision made is a decision made.. and only the involved people should take steps to work it out.
Peace,
Bryanarby

C0mpu13rFr34k said:
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.

Hacre said:
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with you but I guess I'm going to start using both your ROMs Your both great developers

pulser_g2 said:
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda

dont know said:
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what Hero you're using but I had Quick Office on my phone when it came from Orange.
EDIT: In fact, from the official HTC 1.5 RUU:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official/RUU/app $ ls | grep -i quickoffice
Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
This would be Quickoffice, themed to match HTC Sense. In Android 1.5. This file was never deleted in the subsequent OTAs:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official $ find . -iname *office*
./evo/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
./RUU/system/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./RUU/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./postpatch/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Google's Cease and Desist against Cyanogenmod fell down on these very grounds.
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.

It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.

Bryanarby said:
It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect. If you provide me with software licensed by the GPL I am entitled to the EXACT SOURCE CODE USED to compile that piece of software. It's why the GPL has made so many in roads in the security community because the code can be vetted upon request. Once the code is "cleaned up" then it isn't the same code as used to provide the binary release and therefore, a breach in GPL.
Bryanarby said:
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it wasn't and no they aren't. Every "source code" release Feeyo ever provided either didn't work or wasn't the source code that was asked for. You don't do partial releases of source code, or "here's most of it, work the rest out for yourself". That only works if you provide a complete diff patch of the original source to the source used which in essence will provide the original source code used. Feeyo didn't do this either.
Bryanarby said:
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes warez. In the broader sense, Warez is the distribution/use of software for which you do not have a valid license. In most cases, yes, this is because it's paid software being distributed for free, however it boils down to the same legal issue, no valid license.
So warez applies to Feeyo's kernels. He does not have a valid license to distribute them because he does not have a valid GPL license, because he refuses to provide:
A copy of the GPL with his releases or an easily accessible copy of the GPL at distribution point. There's a reason I keep a link to my kernel source in my signature, you're only a click away from your copy of the GPL as well as a click away from your copy of the source code, including easy to read, detailed, changelogs.
AND
A written offer to provide the source code upon request
OR an archive of the source code used to build the binary release at the point of distribution
OR an archive of the source provided upon request.
Failure to match this criteria breaches GPL and once you have breached GPL you no longer have a license to distribute the GPL software in question.
No license + distribution = illegal distribution = Warez.
Bryanarby said:
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I hope I've cleared that up for you.
Furthermore, looking at the Cronos Linux distribution, which Feeyo advertises in his forum signature, that's an even bigger GPL breach than his ROMs are. It's a walking, talking, urination all over the GPL. Not a single mention of the GPL on the site or in the wiki, not a single link to the source code anywhere that I can find.

Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.

Bryanarby said:
Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My initial request was very polite. The aggressiveness came when he refused.
It was finished enough to include in a ROM release. You don't seem to understand how the GPL and open source development works. Once he released that "2.6.32" kernel to the wild, he was obligated to provide the source code he used to build it. Not when he felt like it, not after he'd changed it again, but as it was when that kernel was built.
Myself and others are working on a 2.6.34 port for the Hero. The source code we are working on doesn't work properly as yet, however the source code is STILL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE so that other developers can contribute to it and improve upon it and who knows, even help us get it finished faster.
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Feeyo didn't port 2.6.32 to the Hero. Feeyo changed the version string in the Makefile. Do I have proof of this? Not a jot but I'd bet my house on it. There's some incredibly talented devs working on the 2.6.3x port for the Hero and there's more than one of them. Feeyo got it working in under a week or so he claims. He refused to release the source and pulled the distribution because he was rumbled and he knows it.
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person. After all the deceit from the Cronos group, stemming from way back when he claimed to have goldfish sources for the hero and ended up posting a git snapshot that had nothing at all to do with the Hero up until recently, who the hell knows what's going on.
But I draw the line at GPL breach and lying to a community which Feeyo has done on numerous occasions. Thankfully, XDA seem to agree with me, which at the end of the day, is the opinion that counts.
His actions were contemptuous and the attempted defense/excusing of his actions by the likes of you and your ilk are equally contemptuous.

Hacre said:
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's an interpretation of a "law" - OK (we all use the passion.apk)
but accuse feeyo of warez because not IMMIDIATLY public the code is also an interpration of a "law"
http://www.cronosproject.org/kernelSources.tar.bz2
Hacre said:
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
perhaps
But for me the whole war is so ridiculous that my posts are peanuts

Hacre said:
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, as you started there aswell.. let's keep it at one place or it would get too chaotic to follow for anyone. As Feeyo can atleast speak on the other forum, I will halt following this topic.
Hacre said:
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)

I get the impression that a lot of people are really looking at the GPL the wrong way, not really able to shake off a capitalist mindset from it. The fact of the matter is, if someone develops something and releases it under GPL it means it's free to distribute and edit all you like ON THE CONDITION THAT THE GPL REMAINS. You *CANNOT* take some code, edit it and then claim "welllllll, it's really my code so I'll release it when I'm good and ready". No, that's not the GPL - go and write something from scratch if you want to do that.
The ethos behind the GPL is to promote development, holding sources back until you're happy with them is fine, but then you can't release the ROM. That's far too much like wanting some limelight for yourself before you allow others to carry on. Again - Feeyo did not own the code that he was withholding, he did not author it from scratch and as such he was OBLIGED to make the source available the nanosecond he made a compiled ROM available. I think it's absolutely fair and just that he gets banned for this breach as it's such a fundamental "f**k you" to the GPL, hopefully he'll see what he was doing wrong and remedy it. After all, the more developers working on an open source project the better.
Bryanarby said:
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm concerned, there are no *sides* on this. I'm not a huge follower of XDA, so I'm not involved in all the politics but I have a reasonable understanding of the GPL after living with a total Linux nerd/open source zealot at Uni. The facts are that Feeyo did not make the proper sources available as soon as he released a compiled ROM - that's not how the GPL works. It seems he persistently resisted and as such, was banned. Totally fair enough.

Off-site Roms and XDA support threads

This has become a stickler point for me.
How exactly do these "roms" that post on xda to gain the large audience with links to thier own sites with thier own forums and downloads do it?
Why does XDA allow the threads to exist?
To me it's a confusing point, on one hand you've got the huge user base that XDA has and it's "helpful" but on the other hand these "roms" have chosen to move else where to have a clear cut definition of "who" their users are.
I for one would love to see xda delete these threads, if your rom isnt hosted here why should XDA pick up the tab on the traffic and moderation to "support" the people that don't want to follow basic rules.
It's one thing to post on here saying that it's out it's quite another to have a thread devoted to the rom for "support" when they've got their own site and thier own "donation" setup and don't offer direct links to the roms.
I'm thinking of Bonsai and Baked Snack when I say this, although other sites like ppcgeeks are guilty of it as well.
Here's the breakdown...
Baked snack was a rom a while back that Herver ran, he had people that loved his roms, but he wouldnt share his gpl code, so XDA to avoid issues banned him and removes his threads.
Bonsai started up thier own "business oriented and non-hobby"(randy's words) website and started offering up betas to people that donated, BANNING people that would share this beta software if they found out.(or so his users have said)
PPCGeeks.com basically is a forum that has very little of it's own content and tends to backlink to threads here on XDA. This should not be allowed. it's cheap and annoying to think that other forums all link back to xda but refuse to use and follow it's rules touting it as the devil for thier moderators sucking and other offhanded badness, while at the same time using it's resources for thier own gain.
If you want to follow the XDA rules on rom posting fine. Post here. If you want to have your own site to support the rom fine have the site, but if you get removed from the site for not following the rules, do NOT expect to keep using it to support your users.
The rules of posting should be simple.
If you post a rom in a thread there should NOT be an external sign up on said site to get the rom.
If you post a rom, there should NOT be a pay to play system in place to get "advanced" copies,(nor a "shopping cart" for the rom)
If you post a rom, there SHOULD be a direct link or mirror link to the rom.
If you post a rom, there should be open disclosure and read-only sources to what you've done.
In essence i for one WANT to see all support threads for non-hosted on XDA roms removed, they put a burden on XDA to moderate, the put a burden on XDA for bandwidth and hardware, and they cause undue traffic to those that don't want to play by the rules they signed up for.
Side note, i'd love to see hotlinking from other sites also disabled on XDA to stop those crap spring up offshoot websites thinking they're better and "more laid back" from not having to bother with their own content and users.
Analogy time:
Think of it like this... You've spent a lot of time and money to make a large car lot, you allow others of the community who've used your car lot to gather and sell their own cars on your lot free of charge. It all runs fine until along comes one person that feels they should be allowed to use the facilities of the lot for only themselves and break ruin the good bathroom, now they setup thier own bathroom close to thier table but only people that come to thier table and purchase a car may use this bathroom. After a little while you find that they have opened up their own car lot across the street. You ask them to take their cars elsewhere, and remove them from your lot. BUT they setup a table on your lot and take up valuable real-estate to "answer questions" about their car lot across the street AND about their cars. while using your facilities and security etc. Would you do that in normal circumstances? or would you remove their table as well and let them use their own car lot as a support and sales team for their own cars?
Anyways, thats my take on the whole off-site roms but XDA support.
Add thanks to this if you support this idea, OR post away and add something new to the conversation, *I* personally think that XDA should take a hand in removing these threads from here as they are a detriment to the community that exists and undermines the ideals attached to opensource projects.

I definitely agree with Art3mis on this one. Its ridiculous that they are still allowed to have support threads (and more that they even have support threads instead of just having them all on their own private forums as they either, didnt follow the rules of XDA, or left at their own accord).

Yeah it annoys me that bonsai still has support threads here.

you are right and i agree 100% with everything except this:
art3mis-nyc said:
Side note, i'd love to see hotlinking from other sites also disabled on XDA to stop those crap spring up offshoot websites thinking they're better and "more laid back" from not having to bother with their own content and users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hotlinking from other sites is how all the roms are posted whether it be private domains or sites like multiupload. there is an 8meg limit on xda attachments...so big 100+ meg rom downloads have to be linked from somewhere else to save xda's bandwidth. i personally like hosting my own files and giving direct links in threads because i can look at awstats and know how many times a file has been hit.
on that same note i agree there should be a direct link...and i mean a real direct link....not a redirect to sign up or a redirect to an ad page or anything like that...the rest of your article i agree 100%

Then don't click on the thread?? Is it really that hard?

art3mis-nyc said:
This has become a stickler point for me......(other stuff)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Get off your high horse. You are no dev (not even cut and paste) and no mod.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

XDA doesn't allow software that breaks the rules or off-site competition, but they allow discussion of said software. Kind of counter-intuitive, really.
Rodderik said:
hotlinking from other sites is how all the roms are posted whether it be private domains or sites like multiupload. there is an 8meg limit on xda attachments...so big 100+ meg rom downloads have to be linked from somewhere else to save xda's bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think he means other websites hotlinking to XDA.

All the Bonsai support threads are gone, and have been for a long while. The only thing left is the user discussion thread in the General section. It's for news and users helping other users. Everyone knows where to go for dev support when it comes to Bonsai.
But there are a couple reasons why the thread exists. First off, it doesn't break any XDA rules. They would have to break their own rules or create new ones to get rid of it. The other reason is XDA does not want to remove it. Anything that is considered controversial gets hits. The more hits, the better for advertising revenue . Every time someone tries to start a Bonsai hate thread of *****es about why it exists, people come along and either argue or agree with the OP. XDA does not care one way or the other, they get paid the same.
As Randy stated here-
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=15035075&postcount=1026
He has made every attempt to work things out, but it has been a one way process.

Deleted. Counter productive.
Sent from me!

tl;dr
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

I think this whole thing is kind of silly. The analygy given by the OP isn't even close. In xda, no physical damage was done and nothing illegal was done. You might as well been comparing a frog to a cow .
I am a huge proponent of open source, but as a business owner, I know that time is very important and good developers should be paid.
In other open source industries (I will use Drupal.org as my example), commercial and opensource get along just fine. There are many commercial companies (acquia.com) that's entire business is providing service and support for the open source products they use and promote. The commercial companies have made the open source community way stronger in these last few years. Another example would be Linux, Canonical the business backing Ubuntu.
Those industries have standards too and don't allow any non-GPL (back to the Drupal example) code to be committed in there repository. They still allow commercial companies with closed source to participate.
The "groups" (bonsai, etc...) that are talked about here are still contributing to the the community. They may not be doing it according to xda's rules, but that doesn't mean they aren't contributing.
I understand xda's motives for disallowing closed source stuff in the forums. But banning everyones ability to talk about sites outside of the forum is ridiculous. Thats like saying "we encourage and love open source" but "we hate open (source) communication".
Lastly, why you throwing PPCGeeks under the bus. Before my epic I owned 3 winmo phones. I could find way more CDMA winmo roms on PPCgeeks than I ever found on xda. Fixes were rolled out fast and the winmo community on ppcgeeks was very strong.

Rodderik said:
you are right and i agree 100% with everything except this:
hotlinking from other sites is how all the roms are posted whether it be private domains or sites like multiupload. there is an 8meg limit on xda attachments...so big 100+ meg rom downloads have to be linked from somewhere else to save xda's bandwidth. i personally like hosting my own files and giving direct links in threads because i can look at awstats and know how many times a file has been hit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is more in relation to say i started a "forum" for Superawesomeroms.com and then i have nothing to post so all i do is post links to XDA threads all the while bemoaning and berating XDA for thier crap moderation and blah blah blah blah

Well, I for one post my content here, ppcgeeks, and ACS. Obviously most of the traffic I get is here.
What I can say is that other sites linking to xda is how I found this site. I was on ppcgeeks a few months before xda, and found xda through a link off their site. I also link back to xda quite often when I'm trying to help other on another site. What that shows me is that other sites linking back to xda drives traffic here.
Traffic=revenue. Guess I don't see the problem with that.

art3mis-nyc said:
This has become a stickler point for me.
How exactly do these "roms" that post on xda to gain the large audience with links to thier own sites with thier own forums and downloads do it?
Why does XDA allow the threads to exist?
To me it's a confusing point, on one hand you've got the huge user base that XDA has and it's "helpful" but on the other hand these "roms" have chosen to move else where to have a clear cut definition of "who" their users are.
I for one would love to see xda delete these threads, if your rom isnt hosted here why should XDA pick up the tab on the traffic and moderation to "support" the people that don't want to follow basic rules.
It's one thing to post on here saying that it's out it's quite another to have a thread devoted to the rom for "support" when they've got their own site and thier own "donation" setup and don't offer direct links to the roms.
I'm thinking of Bonsai and Baked Snack when I say this, although other sites like ppcgeeks are guilty of it as well.
Here's the breakdown...
Baked snack was a rom a while back that Herver ran, he had people that loved his roms, but he wouldnt share his gpl code, so XDA to avoid issues banned him and removes his threads.
Bonsai started up thier own "business oriented and non-hobby"(randy's words) website and started offering up betas to people that donated, BANNING people that would share this beta software if they found out.(or so his users have said)
PPCGeeks.com basically is a forum that has very little of it's own content and tends to backlink to threads here on XDA. This should not be allowed. it's cheap and annoying to think that other forums all link back to xda but refuse to use and follow it's rules touting it as the devil for thier moderators sucking and other offhanded badness, while at the same time using it's resources for thier own gain.
If you want to follow the XDA rules on rom posting fine. Post here. If you want to have your own site to support the rom fine have the site, but if you get removed from the site for not following the rules, do NOT expect to keep using it to support your users.
The rules of posting should be simple.
If you post a rom in a thread there should NOT be an external sign up on said site to get the rom.
If you post a rom, there should NOT be a pay to play system in place to get "advanced" copies,(nor a "shopping cart" for the rom)
If you post a rom, there SHOULD be a direct link or mirror link to the rom.
If you post a rom, there should be open disclosure and read-only sources to what you've done.
In essence i for one WANT to see all support threads for non-hosted on XDA roms removed, they put a burden on XDA to moderate, the put a burden on XDA for bandwidth and hardware, and they cause undue traffic to those that don't want to play by the rules they signed up for.
Side note, i'd love to see hotlinking from other sites also disabled on XDA to stop those crap spring up offshoot websites thinking they're better and "more laid back" from not having to bother with their own content and users.
Analogy time:
Think of it like this... You've spent a lot of time and money to make a large car lot, you allow others of the community who've used your car lot to gather and sell their own cars on your lot free of charge. It all runs fine until along comes one person that feels they should be allowed to use the facilities of the lot for only themselves and break ruin the good bathroom, now they setup thier own bathroom close to thier table but only people that come to thier table and purchase a car may use this bathroom. After a little while you find that they have opened up their own car lot across the street. You ask them to take their cars elsewhere, and remove them from your lot. BUT they setup a table on your lot and take up valuable real-estate to "answer questions" about their car lot across the street AND about their cars. while using your facilities and security etc. Would you do that in normal circumstances? or would you remove their table as well and let them use their own car lot as a support and sales team for their own cars?
Anyways, thats my take on the whole off-site roms but XDA support.
Add thanks to this if you support this idea, OR post away and add something new to the conversation, *I* personally think that XDA should take a hand in removing these threads from here as they are a detriment to the community that exists and undermines the ideals attached to opensource projects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As long as your calling everyone else out. Mentioning a competitive site, I do believe, is against the rules.
Guys, these are just phones and at this point why even bring this up? I'm not suggesting that the rules be ignored but everyone constantly getting bent out of shape over this stuff isn't productive or even healthy for that matter.
PLEASE, just let the Bonsai thing just die already. They made their choice and no matter how many people complain about it, is't going to change anything. All it does is start flame wars. If you have something to say to them I suggest you contact them directly and give them a chance to address the concerns directly.
Why can't we do something.......anything...but complain. Does anyone stop to think that Bonsai leaving for setting up their site the way they did has little to nothing to do with the direction the Epic forums are going in? It's bad attitudes and feelings of entitlement that are KILLING this forum, IMHO. Stop complaining and contribute to positive change. If we focus on the negative all the time that's all we are going to get.

If any threads should be deleted it is ones talking about other phones. There are forums for those. This is the Samsung Epic forum, that is the phone I have chosen for 2 years and only want to see threads about those. If an accessory or ROM is avaliable off XA for it, I want to know about it. I don't give a crap about the EVO 3d or Within or any otherstupid little phone that comes out. XDA has a general forum for that and most of these have their own forums. Don't clutter our threads with that garbage, or whiny kids saying "it's official our phone is a piece of crap"! This is the clutter that needs to be removed. Not a single thread for an offsite ROM.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

icevapor said:
I think this whole thing is kind of silly. The analygy given by the OP isn't even close. In xda, no physical damage was done and nothing illegal was done. You might as well been comparing a frog to a cow .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really it's a valid argument, and while you dont see it, BW useage etc is a hit when it supports items that arent on the site itself.
icevapor said:
I am a huge proponent of open source, but as a business owner, I know that time is very important and good developers should be paid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some very fine work perhaps the best work as far as the epic goes, is from people that do it for fun and hobby, and dont ask for donations and in some cases dont even have a link for it, yet others believe as you do apperantly that they should be able to take the others work, rename it and change it and "sell" it(ie the Bonsai clockworkmod that they simply renamed and recoloured) as noted i'm fine with charging for support, it's the software i dont like the charging to exist for.
icevapor said:
In other open source industries (I will use Drupal.org as my example), commercial and opensource get along just fine. There are many commercial companies (acquia.com) that's entire business is providing service and support for the open source products they use and promote. The commercial companies have made the open source community way stronger in these last few years. Another example would be Linux, Canonical the business backing Ubuntu.
Those industries have standards too and don't allow any non-GPL (back to the Drupal example) code to be committed in there repository. They still allow commercial companies with closed source to participate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The difference between that and this is that the Opensource lives along side, doesnt require a signup and in most cases is "on par" with the pay version, again you're paying for support, which im fine with, but the software is available to all or none, not to who pays.(minus some features of course but rarely advanced beta copies etc)
icevapor said:
The "groups" (bonsai, etc...) that are talked about here are still contributing to the the community. They may not be doing it according to xda's rules, but that doesn't mean they aren't contributing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't think of a single thing that has been contributed back, aside from the kernel fiasco for marcusants "psuedo rom"
icevapor said:
Lastly, why you throwing PPCGeeks under the bus. Before my epic I owned 3 winmo phones. I could find way more CDMA winmo roms on PPCgeeks than I ever found on xda. Fixes were rolled out fast and the winmo community on ppcgeeks was very strong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ppcgeeks was the first site that i noticed it on and while it's not directed specifically at them, they are guilty of the above mentioned content links.

i'm not scared of negativity
and you shouldn't be either
if discussing negativity means thats all you will end up with
then ask yourself who is the real source of negativity?
deciding your fate...premonitions?
let it roll
if you never go there...you will never get it out of your system
and i'm sure thats why anyone would participate in this thread to begin with
so do it, and dig deep
just try and be as respectful as possible in your aims
dont cloud this life with misconstrued karma
if you cannot understand someones apparent stance and it appears ignorant or childish,
then try and be the bigger person and post something constructive they can actually do
otherwise you are just bickering for the sake of it
before i get too far off topic
if xda's main goal is truly web traffic...then thats what the userbase is going to comprise of...otherwise you are just out of place and belong elsewhere.
if you are just part of traffic then dont claim to be a leader with every post you make
and vise versa...dont get lost in the traffic when you know damn well you have something to offer the community that is truly valuable. Everyone has a part to play, dont care how many babies are born today.
If in fact this is truly xda's goal...who knows...the site is large...plenty of room for emotion to find its way in.
Life is useful. (dental dams are your friend)
And above all...hitler was nothing compared to billions the russians killed of their own people...
History...it owns people every day.
Stand for something better than the illegitimate use/abuse of people.
Especially when most of these things being created are not very reliable and designed to support jobs and sales and an economy and false hopes and everything that goes along with a society that throws its lives to the foothold of a dollar bill that is utterly useless in the reality of the universe.
Real answers are not easy...take the time as much as you possibly can.
LISTEN
and when you think you cannot take anymore without putting in your two cents
LISTEN SOME MORE
there are plenty of people just hanging around that have been through it all and seen it
and you can stop acting anytime like you are one of them
real life steps in before anyone could ever make a worthwhile decision
humans...making decisions for others since breakfast
tough titties?
we'll see who's talking then...when?
the sooner the sooner

mattallica76 said:
The only thing [Bonsai] left is the user discussion thread in the General section. It's for news and users helping other users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't say whether this is ideal or not. However, folks are going to ask about Bonsai whether discussion is allowed or not. Thus, it's arguably prudent to allow one thread for its discussion to avoid having it being asked about repeatedly in new threads.
shane6374 said:
What I can say is that other sites linking to xda is how I found this site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is perhaps the most important point of the thread. However it happened, xda became the definitive resource for phone hackery. If xda were to forbid off-site hotlinking, that would have the result, both direct (PageRank, robots exclusion, etc.) and indirect (through absence of news articles and other discussion) of sinking it in search results. At which point--at best--some other site would become definitive and discussion would move there, or quite possibly, no one site would emerge as definitive and discussion would become horribly fragmented.
To be honest, the primary reason I post patches here with lengthy technical descriptions is becuase, in 3-6 months time, I know someone Googling a similar problem will come across my threads and find an answer. The fact that it also contributes code to this community is a wonderful secondary benefit, but to be honest, discussion and ROM development is too ephemeral to make it worth the effort if Google wasn't around to archive the result. And it's far easier for me to do it here, and gets far more exposure and use, than if I were to run my own blog or something.

ptfdmedic said:
As long as your calling everyone else out. Mentioning a competitive site, I do believe, is against the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah yeah, pedantic argument.
ptfdmedic said:
Guys, these are just phones and at this point why even bring this up? I'm not suggesting that the rules be ignored but everyone constantly getting bent out of shape over this stuff isn't productive or even healthy for that matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh im not bent out of shape, that post would have been a lot more incoherent if i was.
ptfdmedic said:
PLEASE, just let the Bonsai thing just die already. They made their choice and no matter how many people complain about it, is't going to change anything. All it does is start flame wars. If you have something to say to them I suggest you contact them directly and give them a chance to address the concerns directly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's called an example. Happens to be the most obvious so it's used.
btw i did contact them directly and thats how i came to the quote from randy stating that Bonsai is not a hobby it's a business.
and then the tired out saying of "i for one like to pay for good software rant" while touting the virtues of opensource.(<3 me some hypocrites)
ptfdmedic said:
Why can't we do something.......anything...but complain. Does anyone stop to think that Bonsai leaving for setting up their site the way they did has little to nothing to do with the direction the Epic forums are going in? It's bad attitudes and feelings of entitlement that are KILLING this forum, IMHO. Stop complaining and contribute to positive change. If we focus on the negative all the time that's all we are going to get.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this isn't negative unless you read it that way, i honestly want it to change, and to find out WHY it exists.
People commenting and saying we should "all get along" sadly contribute nothing(good nor bad) to a thread.

mkasick said:
I can't say whether this is ideal or not. However, folks are going to ask about Bonsai whether discussion is allowed or not. Thus, it's arguably prudent to allow one thread for its discussion to avoid having it being asked about repeatedly in new threads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would think so, but the same can't be said towards heros' rom, many threads are started to talk about it are quickly killed and its poster banned.. so it's sort of a double edged.

PLEASE READ THIS !!! -The New Addition to Sharing Policy on XDA-Developers

To All Developers, Themers, Kangers and members read this it will help us all......
From the News from the Portal of XDA.
http://www.xda-developers.com/announ...da-developers/
Posted August 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm by egzthunder1
We are going to deviate a bit from our regularly scheduled programming to let you know about an upcoming change in the rules in the XDA forums. As time has gone by, our site has grown by leaps and bounds from what it was a couple of years ago. With a membership base of over 4.5 million registered users and an average of 35-40 thousand people active at any given time, we need to ensure that this place can offer the best possible environment for all people, both experienced developers and people who come here looking to learn about mobile devices. Because of this reason, the rules of our site need to be amended from time to time to accommodate the needs and wants of such a large user base, but without losing our principles and forgetting what XDA was founded on in the first place.
Just a bit of background: XDA was a website founded by hackers and developers for hackers and developers. People coming here shared one common goal, which was to get more and more out of their expensive toys and they did so by reverse engineering, creating new code to expand the device’s capabilities, and doing things with hardware that most people cannot do (mainly due to lack of knowledge or technical ability). The site prospered to what it is today because these very same people knew that their collective ideas and efforts would yield more results if they collaborated by sharing what they knew with others. More often than not, this resulted in fantastic feats such as the original XDA online kitchen, the very first port of WM5 to the mythical HTC Blue Angel, and many more accomplishments that are stored in the depths of XDA’s forums.
XDA-Developers has always been a place for sharing knowledge. People spend countless hours on their projects and give back to the community in several different forms, either by releasing the complete work to the community, or by sharing its source and methods by which the work was conceived. The latter allows others to pick up the work and tweak it to improve it (think of the Linux kernel for this to make sense). XDA’s own foundation is much like that as well. However, often times, this concept of the sharing of knowledge gets confused with the concept of sharing everything. If you frequent our site, you will have undoubtedly come across a few threads were discussions about sharing are on going. Essentially, some people demand for work to be released or even think that they can take as they please without following rules already present on our site. Likewise, people sharing their work sometimes have rather bizarre ways of doing so, which has a bad tendency to develop in what we like to call “dev wars”.
We (administrators and moderators of this site) truly believe that intellectual property (IP) is a very important part of what is done on xda-developers. As such, we cannot and will not support any kind of action which forces a developer to share their work with others if the developer does not wish to do so. A developer of anything has rights over their work and as such he/she can choose to do with it as he/she pleases (give it away, share the source, burn it, give it to an orphanage, or eat it for breakfast). We support whatever decision is taken by its developer. Having said that, over the years people have found what can only be categorized as a loophole in our current sharing policy, and thus people are forced to do things in exchange for permissions to use certain pieces of work by others.
After a long deliberation with the entire moderator and administrator staff, we are implementing the following addition to our sharing rule (Rule 12) – revisions are in bold:
12. Using the work of others.
If you are developing something that is based on the work of another Member, you MUST first seek their permission, and you must give credit to the member whose work you used. If a dispute occurs about who developed / created a piece of work, first try to settle the matter by private message and NOT in open forum. If this fails then you may contact a moderator with clear evidence that the work was created by you.
Convincing evidence will result in copied work being removed. If there is no clear evidence you created the work then in the spirit of sharing all work will remain posted on the forums.
As an addition, developers have the right to hold exclusivity over their work for as long as it is deemed necessary by the dev or freely share it. However, if the work is claimed as exclusive, it must remain as such. No selective sharing will be allowed (ie allowing certain people to use it and not others). Should the dev decide to start sharing the work with others, the work automatically becomes fair game for all to use.
In regards to permissions, same rules remain for this but if permission was already given, unless there is a very valid reason, it cannot be revoked (same applies to major updates on the work). Under that same premise, permissions cannot be denied unless the work is exclusive or under severe circumstances.
In plain English: If you want to keep your work exclusive, go for it. However, if you are going to share your work, do it fairly.
These rules apply to all software posted on XDA (including but not limited to ROMs, RUUs, apps, games, kernels, themes, icons, etc) unless that software comes with a license that waives these rules.
The problem with the aforementioned permissions is that the rule never really stated anything regarding continuity or longevity of said permission. On top of that, selective sharing creates a massive problem on our site as it tends to give place to kanging (unauthorized copying and/or redistribution of work), fights between devs (so called “dev wars”), and tons of time wasted on investigations, which normally involves a large number of people from our staff. This needed to stop as it was reaching critical mass and high levels of anxiety were generated for no apparent reason on something that should be a hobby.
So, if you are a developer on this site and would like to keep your work as something exclusive, we encourage you to do it. If you would like to freely give it out so that others can use it and make it better, we encourage you to do it as well. However, we will no longer accept claims from anyone who picks and chooses who gets what. As stated in the rule, you either share or keep, but if you do share, do it fairly. Favoritism has created a great divide in our site and our community and it is only hurting development as a whole. People focus more on pointing fingers than they do on trying to create original work.
Permissions should still be sought as a matter of common courtesy, much like the original rule stipulated. However, unless a valid reason is provided, a simple “no, you cannot have it” will not suffice, especially if the work is being shared with others and permissions are denied out of spite.
Lets all work towards a new, rejuvenated XDA that is based on the core principles placed by the site’s founding fathers. Sharing of knowledge is what brought many of us together on this site and we should strive as a community to keep it that way. Please share your thoughts on this.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
XDA-Developers Administration Team

Completely agree with this... I've seen several cases where some people shares something with selected developers but not with others... It sounds stupid but it's true... Android its open source... And what ever derivates from it.. Should be the same..
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2

msedek said:
Completely agree with this... I've seen several cases where some people shares something with selected developers but not with others... It sounds stupid but it's true... Android its open source... And what ever derivates from it.. Should be the same..
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree if your going to share then let everyone share. For example all my files for linuxonandroid are freely available to all via source forge.
That is apart from the apps source which is shared with no one.
However people have the right to keep there hard work closed to just them if they wish after all its their hard work and far to many people take work and give no credit
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium

What is this crap. Either create a Creative Commons License, or fully copyright and lock it down. Simple.

totally agree

bigstarrynight said:
What is this crap. Either create a Creative Commons License, or fully copyright and lock it down. Simple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah let's become an apple like community!
BTW I was being sarcastic
Enviado desde mi LG-P990 usando Tapatalk 2

msedek said:
Yeah let's become an apple like community!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No thanks. Biggest bunch of egotistical know-nothings
msedek said:
BTW I was being sarcastic
Enviado desde mi LG-P990 usando Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It suits you!