Guest Stuart_f Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 I'm coming around to thinking that ZTE's non-compliance is not due to belligerence, rather it's due to mind-boggling incompetence. I don't think they actually have a clue when it comes to source control and they probably do believe they have released the correct source even if it's obvious that they haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sej7278 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 I'm coming around to thinking that ZTE's non-compliance is not due to belligerence, rather it's due to mind-boggling incompetence. I don't think they actually have a clue when it comes to source control and they probably do believe they have released the correct source even if it's obvious that they haven't. hanlon's razor : "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) So.... something along the lines of... and send off to electronic frontier, fsf.... ? :unsure: EFF & FSF have nothing to do with it. They can't really do anything. Only copyright holders (or authorised reps) can sue for copyright infringement. The FSF only hold the copyrights on the GNU tools (which aren't being infringed as far as I know), not the Linux kernel. EFF have a horrific past record of losing court cases & making things worse, getting their backing is like the kiss of death. The only people that could sue would be any of the (estimated) 10,000 people & organisations that have some copyright on the Linux kernel. http://gpl-violations.org/ is run by a Linux kernel copyright holder & he seems enthusiastic about enforcing his copyright, but lacks resources to sue everyone. The problem is that if that happens, there is no way back for ZTE, it's just nuking them from orbit. Coming into compliance with the source code release section of the GPL & releasing the source code wouldn't actually be allowed due to Section 4 of the GPL, they would have to get all 10,000+ copyright holders to agree to let them distribute Linux again. So if it ever goes to court then ZTE wouldn't be allowed to do anything with Linux ever again. That also leaves the door open for any Linux copyright holder to demand whatever they want in an out of court settlement. http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html As for Huawei, they aren't any better about releasing source code. Samsung seem to be the best for releasing code & supporting the development community, but other large manufacturers are catching up. Edited October 7, 2011 by wbaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest t0mm13b Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) EFF & FSF have nothing to do with it. They can't really do anything. Only copyright holders (or authorised reps) can sue for copyright infringement. The FSF only hold the copyrights on the GNU tools (which aren't being infringed as far as I know), not the Linux kernel. EFF have a horrific past record of losing court cases & making things worse, getting their backing is like the kiss of death. The only people that could sue would be any of the (estimated) 10,000 people & organisations that have some copyright on the Linux kernel. http://gpl-violations.org/ is run by a Linux kernel copyright holder & he seems enthusiastic about enforcing his copyright, but lacks resources to sue everyone. The problem is that if that happens, there is no way back for ZTE, it's just nuking them from orbit. Coming into compliance with the source code release section of the GPL & releasing the source code wouldn't actually be allowed due to Section 4 of the GPL, they would have to get all 10,000+ copyright holders to agree to let them distribute Linux again. So if it ever goes to court then ZTE wouldn't be allowed to do anything with Linux ever again. That also leaves the door open for any Linux copyright holder to demand whatever they want in an out of court settlement. http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html As for Huawei, they aren't any better about releasing source code. Samsung seem to be the best for releasing code & supporting the development community, but other large manufacturers are catching up. Ahhh was not sure of the site... cheers for the linky, I stand corrected. :) If what you are saying is not feasible... then what would be your suggestion then instead of "nuking them from orbit"... ? :unsure: Edited October 7, 2011 by t0mm13b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manos Aristeidopoulos Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 Someone has to be "Banned" huawei or Zte i don't know who. (maybe better zte to stop producing android devices Huawei is always one step ahead) So they take an example and not mess around with the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Ahhh was not sure of the site... cheers for the linky, I stand corrected. :) If what you are saying is not feasible... then what would be your suggestion then instead of "nuking them from orbit"... ? :unsure: Unfortunately nuking from orbit is the only option allowed to protect Linux under the GPLv2. It wouldn't be an issue, except there are 10,000 Linux kernel copyright holders, GPLv2 was never written to be used on such a popular project. The nuke from orbit / legal extortion racket option is sure to be tested soon anyway, we don't need to do anything, it only needs 1 of those 10,000 to decide they want to milk Android manufacturers for as much money as possible. If they violate any part of the GPLv2 on the Linux kernel in any way, ever, they lose all rights to redistribute the Linux kernel or anything that uses it (Android devices, plus a lot of other embedded hardware) until they can get all the Linux copyright holders to agree to allow them to start redistributing it again. It is thought to be impossible to even contact all the Linux kernel copyright holders, so effectively they can't redistribute Linux again. Busybox would be a milder option to encourage Android manufacturers to respect the GPL. That's also being infringed by ZTE with their Android devices & it only has a few developers. Looks like this is my last post, Paul has made it clear that I'm no longer welcome here. If you can't be nice, please go and post your post elsewhere. Edited October 7, 2011 by wbaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 The 2.6.32 kernel source that ZTE has released doesn't have a working driver for the camera in the ZTE Libra. hi! I am very new here, but isn't it possible to somehow get the exact type of the camera installed in Libra and search for the driver in other android-based device's source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stuart_f Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 It's possible and this is how many ports are done. However, the point is that ZTE are required to release the source that they used and this should quite clearly include the right driver for the camera. The fact that the camera driver is missing is proof that the source they released is not the same source they used to build the kernel on the shipping phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 It's possible and this is how many ports are done. However, the point is that ZTE are required to release the source that they used and this should quite clearly include the right driver for the camera. The fact that the camera driver is missing is proof that the source they released is not the same source they used to build the kernel on the shipping phones. The camera driver is there, it just isn't set up correctly so it doesn't work. There is another new camera sensor in the v880 too & that driver doesn't work either. I can't test anything because I don't have a Libra. I am talking about in the .35 kernel source here, which is for the skate & not (officially) the blade, but i doubt the drivers in the old .32 kernel source will work either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unrandomsam Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 http://fosspatents.b...heir-linux.html Fosspatents has been shown a lot of times to be totally incorrect by people who are qualified to make comments (Other lawyers). (Because of the way its overly sensationalized I think its best to ignore it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unrandomsam Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 I'm coming around to thinking that ZTE's non-compliance is not due to belligerence, rather it's due to mind-boggling incompetence. I don't think they actually have a clue when it comes to source control and they probably do believe they have released the correct source even if it's obvious that they haven't. Maybe that sort of reasoning might be ok if you are dealing with a small company (and it only happens once and is corrected quickly). But doesn't wash that in so many people they are not one who can read English and understand the license and can look through the code. (If you look at Samsung or Motorola do then its obvious what to do. (No doubt ZTE has lawyers as they are being sued by Ericsson - easy enough to just convert the requirements in the license to Chinese for one of those). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Fosspatents has been shown a lot of times to be totally incorrect by people who are qualified to make comments (Other lawyers). (Because of the way its overly sensationalized I think its best to ignore it.) With this particular story, he seems to be spot on. The FSF (and their lawyers) take the same position & they wrote the GPL. It's totally consistent with past cases involving GPLv2 software. You can always find lawyers that will take either side of any argument, that is why we have court cases & they still have a job. It's only safe to ignore it if you don't violate the GPL. https://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3 All it will take is one out of those 10,000 people & organisations that own copyright on the Linux kernel to decide they want to threaten Android oems for unlimited amounts of cash to let them stay in business. Apparently the Libra's camera drivers aren't in the .32 source code at all. They're in the .35 source, but it needs more than just a new config to make them work. Edited October 8, 2011 by wbaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hecatae Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Dear ZTE, Thank you for giving us an official 2.3.5 image.bin for the ZTE Libra Blade http://wwwen.zte.com...32559206355.zip Could you please be kind enough to supply the kernel source for the above official firmware image from your website. Thank you also tweeted http://twitter.com/#!/hecatae/status/123142225231220736 just in case you no longer read the Modaco forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now