Question OnePlus continuing to alienate the entire developer community

Question OnePlus continuing to alienate the entire developer community - OnePlus 9 Pro

OnePlus's broken promises are leaving developers angry and enthusiasts upset
It's violating the GPL, silently killed its developer device seeding program, and broke arguably every promise made at its 2019 Open Ears Forum
www.androidpolice.com
This, especially should see their phones blocked until they follow the rules correctly:
Android runs on Linux, in case you didn't know, which means every Android device runs the Linux kernel. In most cases, this requires customizing the kernel slightly to work on different hardware, and anyone that does that is required to honor the Linux kernel's GNU General Public License agreement, or GPL. Among other things, it requires that the "source" for the kernel — the code required to build it as written out before its compiled in a way a computer can use — be made available for other developers to see, use, and base their own further modifications on top of.
While there's no hard requirement I can tell regarding the required timeliness of kernel source releases, OnePlus is at least breaking the spirit of the GPL by being so late, and it's definitely breaking it when the source is unavailable or missing parts that are required for it to work. At its Open Ears Forum in 2019, OnePlus promised the "on-time" release of kernel sources for all builds, including Open Betas — more on that later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

djsubterrain said:
OnePlus's broken promises are leaving developers angry and enthusiasts upset
It's violating the GPL, silently killed its developer device seeding program, and broke arguably every promise made at its 2019 Open Ears Forum
www.androidpolice.com
This, especially should see their phones blocked until they follow the rules correctly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not maybe GPL violation, its IS GPL violation! Thanks OPPO

I'm hardly surprised. OnePlus abandoned a lot of their promises when they did the merger, and I don't really expect them to deliver on them now.
I guess that means a Pixel is the only option until Google too decides to kill customization. They're already hardening Safetynet which looks like they're getting ready to kill off development.

Related

[ATTN - ALL ANDROID DEVS] General Public License

A little introduction
Recently in several Android fora on XDA-Developers, it has come to the attention of the moderator team that there have been issues regarding developers’ compliance with the GPL. This post aims to clarify the position of XDA on the use of GPL sources, particularly in the development of Android kernels.
Without the GPL, the Android operating system would likely never have come about. Through the work of Linus Torvalds, the Linux kernel was made open source for all to use, share and modify. As Android runs on the Linux kernel, and features numerous modifications to these sources, it would not exist in its present state without the Open Source community.
As a result, it is in the interests of everyone who owns an Android phone, who wishes to see further development on the platform, to ensure that they play their part in upholding both the letter and spirit of the GPL.
The GNU General Public Licence (also known as the GPL) is available to read in full at www.gnu.org
To make it easy for everyone to spot a release that complies with the GPL mark the title of your release thread with [GPL]. If you find a ROM which does not comply with the GPL, or the developer does not issue sources, you can report the post as usual, using the report post button next to the post number. Alternatively you may PM your forum specific moderator.
The Rules as they apply on XDA
As XDA has no legal power to uphold the GPL (and frankly we want to stay as far away from doing so as possible), we can’t force any of our users to abide by the GPL. However it is in XDA’s interests as well as the interests of our developer-base to ensure all GPL-derived materials hosted or linked on XDA comply fully with the GPL.
GPL-derived materials that do not come with the complete sources used to compile the GPL components are considered warez, and will be treated as such under forum rule 6 and 9.
If you use GPL components, but do not make any modifications to them whatsoever, you should provide a link to the original source of your GPL code.
Sources accompanying a release should be complete, and contain all the necessary source code for any modules, scripts or definition files. Complete sources will be defined as those which compile correctly and completely against the platform for which the software is distributed, and which contain any and all modifications made to the released General Public Licenced code. The source code supplied should be the exact version for which the source code is being requested, complete with all modifications.
EXAMPLE: Here’s a bit of code that could be used as a template to post your releases
<Kernel Or Author Name> <Kernel Nr>:
<Source>|<ReadMe>|<Credits>|<Other>
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Very Quick Summary of General Public License (GPL)
The text of the GPL Licence itself will be used to reach any final conclusion regarding any disputes over GPL Licenced materials. The above is a summary of what XDA expects of members using GPL code, and the complete text can be read at the GNU website.
The GPL states that anyone who modifies GPL licenced code is required to make available the sources used to compile it. This is to further improve and encourage collaborative work, as well as to ensure that the best code possible is produced, and to encourage peer-review of all work. This benefits both developers and end users in numerous ways, including:
Allowing anyone to verify the code they are trusting with their data, and its authenticity
Encouraging community collaboration to produce faster fixes and updates, and better code
Helping bring new developments from other devices and fields to your own, letting you benefit from new code that wouldn’t have been available without this sharing.
The GPL imparts great freedom for GPL end users. It ensures innovation is never stifled and no project is dependent upon any single developer.
It is in everyone’s interest for the GPL to be adhered to, as it gives us all better ROMs, better transparency, and a better atmosphere for developers to work together to make great code.

[ATTN - ALL ANDROID DEVS] General Public License

XDA and the Gnu General Public License "GPL"

Hey all, also to pulser_g2 (moderator who is a fan of the ban button)
This is Herver and I wanted to give a quick explanation of me being banned by xda. I was banned for "breaking GPL". XDA tells us that they attempt to uphold the GPL to avoid legal/complaint issues. Well as you can plainly see that there are tons of kernel files available that do not have a corresponding source code. For example, the froyo leaks that some people use on their epics. There is no code made available to us users on these kernels. This shows direct disregard for the GPL where it states that files under the gpl may be made private (as samsung has done) and they do not have to release the code as long as it is not publicly distributed. But by people on these forums sharing this kernel makes it being publicly distributed by the user (aka OP). If that user was Herver he would be banned without a second look. The reason that this trouble me to think is that technically there could be malicious code located inside one of these kernels that thousands of people are running. What if they implemented a feature to brick the phone at 12:00pm on November 21st 2010. Also, if you happen to also own an HTC Evo 4g you may be running the lates kernel from HTC. It is well known that the kernel has been made public by htc for over a month but they have still declined to release the source code. Why they arent being sued by GPL owners is because the GPL owners do not care or else the hundreds of different android phones without proper kernel source codes wouldn't exist. XDA upholds what I like to call "XDA GPL". And what that means is that they only make you give the source code if there is something that they want from inside of it. which is not the way GPL was meant to be. GPL is for safety and protect intellectual property.
With that being said, here is a small list of roms/kernels that do not abide by the gpl but XDA doesnt mind because they do not have code that they are interested in:
stock evo rom: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=817194
jac vibrant kernel: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=781456
whiskey kernel (was up for 2+weeks w/o source) : http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=821514
captivate kernel (says what is done but no source! he can easily lie) http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=828052
fascinate kernel: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=841068
So these people dont get banned because an XDA moderator either doesnt want their code (no need for it). or because they are getting special treatment by either being a friend of a mod or a donator

So...basically you're justifying yourself by saying "but all these guys are doing it!"
Grow up, you child.

Obey the rules and you'll be fine. Don't use your perceptions of the behavior of others to justify your own misbehavior.
Best regards,
-boggsie
EatTheTruth said:
Hey all, also to pulser_g2 (moderator who is a fan of the ban button)
This is Herver and I wanted to give a quick explanation of me being banned by xda. I was banned for "breaking GPL". XDA tells us that they attempt to uphold the GPL to avoid legal/complaint issues. Well as you can plainly see that there are tons of kernel files available that do not have a corresponding source code. For example, the froyo leaks that some people use on their epics. There is no code made available to us users on these kernels. This shows direct disregard for the GPL where it states that files under the gpl may be made private (as samsung has done) and they do not have to release the code as long as it is not publicly distributed. But by people on these forums sharing this kernel makes it being publicly distributed by the user (aka OP). If that user was Herver he would be banned without a second look. The reason that this trouble me to think is that technically there could be malicious code located inside one of these kernels that thousands of people are running. What if they implemented a feature to brick the phone at 12:00pm on November 21st 2010. Also, if you happen to also own an HTC Evo 4g you may be running the lates kernel from HTC. It is well known that the kernel has been made public by htc for over a month but they have still declined to release the source code. Why they arent being sued by GPL owners is because the GPL owners do not care or else the hundreds of different android phones without proper kernel source codes wouldn't exist. XDA upholds what I like to call "XDA GPL". And what that means is that they only make you give the source code if there is something that they want from inside of it. which is not the way GPL was meant to be. GPL is for safety and protect intellectual property.
With that being said, here is a small list of roms/kernels that do not abide by the gpl but XDA doesnt mind because they do not have code that they are interested in:
stock evo rom: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=817194
jac vibrant kernel: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=781456
whiskey kernel (was up for 2+weeks w/o source) : http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=821514
captivate kernel (says what is done but no source! he can easily lie) http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=828052
fascinate kernel: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=841068
So these people dont get banned because an XDA moderator either doesnt want their code (no need for it). or because they are getting special treatment by either being a friend of a mod or a donator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Well after reading the sticky which contains all of the information needed to understand the rules around here and not get banned like this guy did. I was going to have a good time ripping him apart after reading his post. OF course he has been banned and there is no point in it now.
With that being said though. Guys take a lesson from this idiot. If your life is so empty that you must come back to a forum, game server, chat room etc and whine because you were banned, that is just sad. I've said it for going on 17(wow, just realized how long I've been online) years and I will never change my thinking about it. It's the internet and 99.9% of everything you need to know to make something happen, not get banned and learn a new skill is right there in front of you. All you have to do is READ everything and follow instructions. That does not mean read the rules and then say, "well I understand it a different way than it has been typed out so it does not apply to me really". As the world gets dumber and people become more and more hung up on being "part of something' when it comes to the internet it seems that the simple art of reading has been lost.
OP, I know you are going to see what I've typed here because people like you can't just move on with your life. You are sitting there right now on a different PC, a phone or a tablet ticked off and plotting your revenge on XDA as I type this. You have probably google searched "how to hack a forum" more than once before and after creating this thread. I feel sorry for you really and I hope that you find something in life that makes you happy one day so that you do not have to live your life online. Good luck with your revenge, I know you are trying

What are we supposed to do when phone manufacturers & phone networks are violating the GPL by not distributing (complete, up to date) kernel source code for their Android devices?
Several manufacturers, like Huawei & ZTE are totally flouting the GPL with devices that they're selling & not releasing source code for. The phone networks, retailers & other distributers of these devices are also ignoring the GPL. This makes it very hard to produce a working custom rom for these devices without also violating the GPL.
This shows direct disregard for the GPL where it states that files under the gpl may be made private (as samsung has done) and they do not have to release the code as long as it is not publicly distributed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't find that part of the GPL, where does it say that?

wbaw said:
What are we supposed to do when phone manufacturers & phone networks are violating the GPL by not distributing (complete, up to date) kernel source code for their Android devices?
Several manufacturers, like Huawei & ZTE are totally flouting the GPL with devices that they're selling & not releasing source code for. The phone networks, retailers & other distributers of these devices are also ignoring the GPL. This makes it very hard to produce a working custom rom for these devices without also violating the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Report them to the FSF. Don't purchase their phones. Bug them on Facebook, Twitter, by email and by phone. It's bad enough when the big US OEMs don't comply in a timely fashion, but for some manufacturers not to comply at all is ridiculous.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

mrkite38 said:
Report them to the FSF. Don't purchase their phones. Bug them on Facebook, Twitter, by email and by phone. It's bad enough when the big US OEMs don't comply in a timely fashion, but for some manufacturers not to comply at all is ridiculous.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They do sometimes release some source code, but it's usually not complete & out of date by the time they release it.
There's no 'in a timely manner' part in the gpl either, they're either compliant or not, imo.
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html said:
As a seller of GPL based products what is good practice ?
Remember the license requires you make source available to your customers with the product or to include a written offer. Putting a zip of the relevant sources on the Documentation CD is a great way to do this.
If you include GPL software, include a copy of the GPL with your license documentation and make sure it is clear that your product contains GPL software.
If you make available software/firmware updates via Internet, and the update or software/firmware image contains GPL software, you have to provide the corresponding source code for every single version.
This is not legal advice, if you have doubts consult your legal counsel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html
How many Android vendors actually do that? Do Samsung comply now? I'll make sure that my next phone is from a GPL compliant vendor.
Problem is I'm not rich & this ZTE Blade that I own still has by far the best hardware of any phone in it's price range. I wasn't aware that it was running pirate software when I bought it.
I've asked both ZTE & Orange for source code on Twitter, other public forums where they have PR reps & I've just sent them both emails about the 2.6.35.7 kernel used on their Orange Monte Carlo (aka ZTE Skate) phone. I'll be getting banned from modaco when I ask again, apparently (shows how much they care about GPL).
Does the FSF own any copyright on the Linux kernel? I know that the guy that runs gpl-violations.org is a kernel developer. The GPL is a copyright license, so only a copyright holder of the software in question could take legal action.

wbaw said:
They do sometimes release some source code, but it's usually not complete & out of date by the time they release it.
There's no 'in a timely manner' part in the gpl either, they're either compliant or not, imo.
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html
How many Android vendors actually do that? Do Samsung comply now? I'll make sure that my next phone is from a GPL compliant vendor.
Problem is I'm not rich & this ZTE Blade that I own still has by far the best hardware of any phone in it's price range. I wasn't aware that it was running pirate software when I bought it.
I've asked both ZTE & Orange for source code on Twitter, other public forums where they have PR reps & I've just sent them both emails about the 2.6.35.7 kernel used on their Orange Monte Carlo (aka ZTE Skate) phone. I'll be getting banned from modaco when I ask again, apparently (shows how much they care about GPL).
Does the FSF own any copyright on the Linux kernel? I know that the guy that runs gpl-violations.org is a kernel developer. The GPL is a copyright license, so only a copyright holder of the software in question could take legal action.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone with gpl code in a kernel can take action.
I know two people who would be eligible under that for bringing a complaint against them.
To pick up on a point about the blade, you said and you would be banned from Modaco again... Do you mean they have source that isn't being released?
TBH it is a sign of weakness to say "if you ask about sources again we ban you". It is lame and laughable... At the end of the day, unless we can get a good "no win no fee" lawyer to take up the case, where he took 100% of any damages, you don't stand a chance of getting anywhere.
But if you could get someone to take the case, you could end up with a landmark injunction against them
Just whatever you do, don't give in to those who think it is OK to avoid posting sources... Send them letters to their formal complaints address. Phone customer services and insist on speaking to their legal team. Eventually you will get somewhere, and can undo all the fail they added...

Another interesting case where individuals/companies are not compliant: With GPL V2 (as used in the Linux Kernel) people who modify the kernel and fail to comply with all of the license's specifications can have their license to use and distribute the kernel revoked. Google is in serious danger of not being able to use the Android kernel any longer (as ludicrous as that sounds) because Honeycomb as it we've only seen it in Vanilla form has so far violated the GPL by not releasing its' sources for many months now. More info below and here
Thanks to Android's commercial success, the kernel Linux, which is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2, is being distributed more than ever before. Whenever someone distributes GPL-covered software, they must follow a few conditions set forth in the license. These conditions try to give anyone who receives the software both the legal permission and the practical tools necessary to change and share the software themselves if they wish. Not all of the companies that distribute Android heed these conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry to digress

pulser_g2 said:
Anyone with gpl code in a kernel can take action.
I know two people who would be eligible under that for bringing a complaint against them.
To pick up on a point about the blade, you said and you would be banned from Modaco again... Do you mean they have source that isn't being released?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have a ZTE PR rep posting on their forum, apparently we aren't allowed to mention (lack of) source code to him: http://android.modaco.com/topic/344728-posts-requesting-the-zte-skate-source-code/
TBH it is a sign of weakness to say "if you ask about sources again we ban you". It is lame and laughable... At the end of the day, unless we can get a good "no win no fee" lawyer to take up the case, where he took 100% of any damages, you don't stand a chance of getting anywhere.
But if you could get someone to take the case, you could end up with a landmark injunction against them
Just whatever you do, don't give in to those who think it is OK to avoid posting sources... Send them letters to their formal complaints address. Phone customer services and insist on speaking to their legal team. Eventually you will get somewhere, and can undo all the fail they added...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've emailed both ZTE (China) & Orange UK asking for kernel source code. I got a negative response from ZTE
"Firstly , many thanks for contacting us and share with the related information,
secondly, I'm sorry that we couldn't provide the source code of Skate as requested due to confidential issue ,
hope you can understand that, "
I sent a reply back asking them to forward my request to their legal team.
No response yet from Orange UK, who are selling ZTE Skate phones in the UK rebranded as the "Orange Monte Carlo"

I will ask our resident lawyer to mention this to Connor from orange
Edit :
That post regarding the source is just another example of some people tolerating it...
If it was me, I would have told the ZTE staff where to put their staff, until the full unaltered, gpl sources used to compile the kernel were posted.
THEN they would be welcome...
Anyway, it is not a surprise to see that coming from that particular site, but I shall say no more...
I would honestly like to see ZTE and other companies in court over this, as it would set up a good precedent against it in future...

I tweeted Connor from Orange over 2 weeks ago - https://twitter.com/#!/John_Kenney/status/99152809664065536
I emailed Orange's customer service team.
It should be Orange's responsibility to provide the source code in this case, they're re-branding these ZTE Skate phones using their own brand & at the moment they are the only UK distributor. Technically ZTE's only responsibility is to pass the source code on to Orange so that they can pass it on to their customers.
I've not had any reply at all from Orange.
There are a lot of other Android vendors playing similar games over source code. I'd love to see some of them in court over it & the source code for the GPL parts of every Android device made available. Unfortunately I don't own any copyright on the Linux kernel, so the best I can do is moan about it.
This is the thread referred to in that post in the Skate forum on modaco, the one that they don't want to see repeated in the Skate forum, it's just people asking for the source code & trying to explain why it's needed: http://android.modaco.com/topic/342666-source-codes/
The closed sticky post in the skate forum has been edited a few times, at first it was quite clear that any posts mentioning skate source code would lead to bans. They wanted to see 'no repeat' of the 'unacceptable behaviour' in the blade forum with us being cheeky enough to ask where the source code was, there was a single thread in the blade forum, the one i linked to above.
Also, never seen Paul post any source code for any kernels that he's modified, recompiled & redistributed. They seem to be more interested in getting free hardware from PR companies, networks & manufacturers than doing what's right.
Another thing - busybox, bash & nano are also GPL code, but I only ever see mention of the kernel. I used bash & nano downloaded from xda threads before I realised there was no source code for those versions, now I use CM7 versions.

Develop Bugs

welcome