Why "wait for the UK ROM update"?

[Guest mossywell]

I've seen may people asking about the French ROM update and whether it's good / safe / cool etc. E.g. here: http://www.modaco.com/French_Rom_for_c500-t212211.html

I notice that commonly, the reply is something like "it's not much different - WMP 10 is better, keypress issue is solved, tomtom breaks, and you won't easily be able to downgrade, so best wait for the UK ROM" etc etc. (Of course, downgrading is possible with the fine work of the SPV-Developers - just a bit of a hack.)

Now, I must be missing something here and am in need of a serious dose of caffeine, because as I understand it, the only difference between the UK and the French is the language? So, if people are advising to avoid the French one, why are they advising to install the UK one when it's formally available? (Presumably, for example, it'll also break tomtom?) Or is the UK version actually going to be better than the French one?

I guess there's some obvious logic here that escapes me? :oops:

PS. I had the French version for some time after it was released and found it to be no problem at all.

EDIT: Pants! I think that this should have been posted in HTC Typhoon & Variants - Typhoon.MoDaCo.com as it's C500 specific. Sorry!

Edited June 29, 2005 by mossywell

[Guest Disco Stu]

Pretty much anything can go in Help & Advice so don't worry about that.

WMP10 is the only thing I can think makes the update attractive.

[Guest mupwangle]

Mainly because you invalidate your insurance and warranty by installing firmware not officially supported by your carrier.

Also installing the French orange rom is a violation of software licencing laws if it is not installed on the french c500.

[Guest mossywell]

WMP10 is the only thing I can think makes the update attractive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So technically, no need to wait for the UK version then?

Mainly because you invalidate your insurance and warranty by installing firmware not officially supported by your carrier.

Also installing the French orange rom is a violation of software licencing laws if it is not installed on the french c500.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure I remember reading a posting that contradiced this, though I can't find it now. I certainly don't recall reading this anywhere on either French or UK ROMs, but perhaps I didn't look hard enough! Any references to back this up?

Cheers

M

[Guest mupwangle]

"Orange Care Section 4.1©

A replacement or repair will not be provided under the terms of the insurance where the loss or damage is caused by or consists of improper maintenance, repair or modification"

I've ran into this before with phones and computers. Improper modification includes anything that is not provided through official channels. In the case of mobile phones that means anything not provided directly from Microsoft, HTC or Orange UK. The french ROM although from Orange, doesn't come from Orange UK which is your provider so is therefore unauthorised. There were comments on the forum the other day about HTC not noticing but that is different from it being OK. If they were to notice then they wouldn't fix it.

As far as licensing goes it is not a point for argument. You are provided with a copy of Windows Mobile 2003SE through an OEM licence which is probably held by Orange (HTC edit it then orange make changes. Since orange are the distributor then they probably hold the licence) OEM licences are only for use on specific products provided by the licence holder and updates can only be applied to those devices when provided by the licence holder. Technically (and export laws come into this too) if you install the french rom then you are not installing it under the terms of the OEM licence so you owe money to microsoft.

It's the same if you get a free copy of windows pre-installed on your desktop and take it off and put it on another machine. The licence isn't valid - it's why the licence certificate is on the machine rather than the documentation.

[Guest mossywell]

"Orange Care Section 4.1©

A replacement or repair will not be provided under the terms of the insurance where the loss or damage is caused by or consists of improper maintenance, repair or modification"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah right - I don't have Orange care, so personally, this isn't an issue. The safe option is clearly to put things back how they were before getting a repair! More interesting is the licensing issue...

As far as licensing goes it is not a point for argument.  You are provided with a copy of Windows Mobile 2003SE through an OEM licence which is probably held by Orange (HTC edit it then orange make changes. Since orange are the distributor then they probably hold the licence)  OEM licences are only for use on specific products provided by the licence holder and updates can only be applied to those devices when provided by the licence holder.  Technically (and export laws come into this too) if you install the french rom then you are not installing it under the terms of the OEM licence so you owe money to microsoft.

It's the same if you get a free copy of windows pre-installed on your desktop and take it off and put it on another machine.  The licence isn't valid - it's why the licence certificate is on the machine rather than the documentation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm going to have a think about this and repost whren I've chewed it over. In the meantime, some food for thought: I believe that an EULA can only be binding if agreed to by the end user? AFAIK, I've never agreed to an EULA for Smartphone 2003. Presumably, this makes the phone situation different to the PC in that respect.

[Guest mupwangle]

>>I believe that an EULA can only be binding if agreed to by the end user?

There was an issue with installing a windows update (it was a media player thing) that had a eula that was more far reaching than previously listed and someone got hold of the update and hacked it so that the eula was completely blank so that technically you weren't agreeing to anything. It's since been ruled that use of software is implicit acceptance of it's t&c's - as long as those t&c's are not unreasonable. Plonking weird clauses in there could easily be overruled though.

Anyhoo, this has all been posted elsewhere on modaco and could be argued forever. 2 points though- when you install an update there is a EULA to agree to (even if french) and to install the french update you need to modify the code which breaches *so* many copyright rules.

[Guest mossywell]

There was an issue with installing a windows update (it was a media player thing) that had a eula that was more far reaching than previously listed and someone got hold of the update and hacked it so that the eula was completely blank so that technically you weren't agreeing to anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Extraordinary - I didn't know that one - must remember it! :)

Anyhoo, this has all been posted elsewhere on modaco and could be argued forever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite so. Perhaps I should have checked first, but it's always good to have a cogent discussion about it. It beats telling people how to app unlock their phones for example. :D

.. to install the french update you need to modify the code ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm - I though it was non-code that was modified, i.e. data in the "boot sector" or MBR [he said, forgetting the equivalent phone terminology]?

Do you know where the EULA is published? (It must be somewhere because it surely can't be enforcable if it's not available for viewing!) I ask because my understanding of a computer OEM agreement is that the license is tied to a PC. The PC is actually the motherboard in the Microsoft OEM EULA. (Yes, it is possible to change the case, the memory, the CPU, the hard disk and the video card without breaching the OEM license - Microsoft's OEM FAQ says so.) In the case of a mobile phone, it clearly can't say that, so I was wondering what is actually did say?

[Guest mupwangle]

Dunno, but when you install the ROM upgrades there is a readme which you have to agree to before you install it.

Out of interest - I'd installed the other ROM of my previous c500 and it was no probs at all. ;-)

[Guest mossywell]

Dunno, but when you install the ROM upgrades there is a readme which you have to agree to before you install it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll see if I can find the EULA.

Out of interest - I'd installed the other ROM of my previous c500 and it was no probs at all. ;-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same here. I've lost count of the number of ROM upgrades, downgrades, shmadegrades I've done. It's always nice to know if I'm breaking any laws in the process. :) :D

[Guest mupwangle]

I'm going to give orange UK a week to see if they release the update before I reflash.

[Guest mikey86uk]

I'm going to give orange UK a week to see if they release the update before I reflash.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i phoned orange up and they said there is nuffin on there computer screens saying a update was on its way i then also asked if the french rom would do effect the warrenty and he said no :)

[Guest Bouchehog]

What version are you all actually running? The latest version on the Orange site is less than the version on the phone I brought last week. I'm running 4.2.1.1 and I have to say that although I've not used any previous ROMs I'm impressed with this one.

[Guest mupwangle]

4.1.1.4 is the only available rom. Yours is the new one. Git. ;-)

>>the warrenty and he said no

Orange CS also deny the very existence of the new ROM, the C550 and the M500 so I wouldn't take their word for anything. ;-)

[Guest Bouchehog]

Well if you WILL get those outdated phones... :)

It does seem to work pretty well, but unless you're having problems with the previous ROM I don't see why there is such a fuss. After all, it doesn't really make that much of a difference (although looking at the notes, I can see where the advantages are).

[Guest mossywell]

Getting back to the licensing issue if I may (sorry, but the questions about when's the UK ROM coming out, what does it do, will it void the warranty have been done to death, whereas the licensing question still has some mileage)...

I was thinking about this on the bus today, and it occured to me that often (perhaps always) when a company is wholly owned by another, if the subsidiary purchases a license, the parent company is actually the license owner simply because it owns the subsidary's assets. Now given this, it is possible that the EULA (which I still haven't found) is with France Telecom and not Orange UK. If this is the case, then putting the French ROM on a UK phone may not be breaching the OEM license after all. Just a thought. (Bear in mind that it is the license, not the software per se that is tied to the hardware. This allows for a service pack, for example, to be installed without compromising the EULA. So, the question becomes: does the software installed - in this case the French ROM - match the license?)

Just some idle late evening ramblings, probably complete nonsense...

[Guest mossywell]

mupwangle: Don't know if you're still reading this or have got a bit bored with it, but I've been talking to Microsoft about the licensing of Smartphone. Basically, there is no EULA because the software is burnt onto a ROM chip, much in the same way as software that is in a digital camera for example (which also doesn't come with an EULA for the on-chip software). Therefore, it will be covered by standard IPR laws - making reverse engineering, for example, illegal.

According to Microsoft, the license for Smartphone will probably have been purchased by HTC, not Orange as they are the manufacturers. Any licensing agreement will be between HTC and Microsoft. Again, like a camera, the phone is then sold (via Orange) as a complete unit of hardware and software.

This does raise the question of whether putting on a "foreign" ROM by an end user is indeed illegal? If this were done to a digital camera, would that be illegal? Probably not - it would instead simply void the warranty (which is a different question). The question of whether the license is OEM or not is also not relevant because the agreement is between HTC and Microsoft, not Orange and the end user. (As the end user doesn't get involved in this agreement, the question of whether it's OEM or not is superfluous: it's simply an agreement between HTC and Microsoft to match phones to software in a 1 to 1 basis.)

Thoughts?

[Guest mupwangle]

It's 4pm on a friday afternoon and that made my head hurt. ;-D

Short answer is I don't have the foggiest.

I think thats the problem - that it is very difficult these days to work out what you can and can't legally do. Music is the worst - almost everyone I know doesn't realise that it is illegal to copy a cd either to an MP3 player or a compilation for the car (before random posts from americans - this is the case under UK copyright law) The same with licencing - people don't realise that if they buy a machine with windows then they don't have the right to use it when they replace their motherboard.

Someone should simplify things. It's getting silly now.

[Guest mossywell]

It's 4pm on a friday afternoon and that made my head hurt. ;-D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL Sorry about that. :D

EDIT: You have the weekend to recover :)

I think thats the problem - that it is very difficult these days to work out what you can and can't legally do.  Music is the worst - almost everyone I know doesn't realise that it is illegal to copy a cd either to an MP3 player or a compilation for the car (before random posts from americans - this is the case under UK copyright law) The same with licencing - people don't realise that if they buy a machine with windows then they don't have the right to use it when they replace their motherboard.

Someone should simplify things.  It's getting silly now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, though it's not entirely surprising given the subtle combinations of ownership, hardware, software, manufacturers, distributors, resellers and end users. Also, the more complex it is, the more money lawyers make, so I can't see the situation improving!

Edited July 1, 2005 by mossywell

[Guest mupwangle]

The problem is the definition of a product. The law now seems to be going towards (at least in the case of software/media) the line that software or other copyrighted material remains the absolute property of the copyright owner and that the consumer's rights are no more than those of a lender from a video shop, and that the vendor has the rights to change the rules whenever they see fit. DRM is a good example. Buy a MS eBook at it will delete itself after 31 days - whether or not you've read it. Buy a track from an online download store and it will only play 5 times.

Example - I own about 40odd Xbox games. I cannot duplicate them, technically cannot sell them without permission and so on. I have rented the product. In theory I should be able to set them on fire and go to Game and demand replacements (a 50p per disc fee should cover media costs) as I have paid for the game and not the media it came on. I might try that (when drunk/bored)

The worrying part is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. TIVO-type devices that can delete on demand from the network and prevent fast-forwarding of adverts (this already exists!), banning media recorders and other products/software because they *could* be used to commit piracy(this is happening now), CDs that can only play on CD players authorised by the record company (this already exists - and if you buy one you are entitled to a refund if you can't get it to play as it is sold in the CD section of the record shop but philips have said that they are not compliant so cannot be called CD), software that kills itself if you don't buy upgrades, internet access that cuts you off if you don't click on the sponsor's messages and so on.

I'll stop before I get into a rant about DRM and other evils of the modern age. Tis the weekend and I don't want to be wound up. ;-)

[Guest mossywell]

That was a top-class rant - one that I had intended to reply to before your weekend, but I didn't want to spoil it. :D

I wouldn't worry - things always come full circle. The music industry will become so paranoid about theft that they'll first ban CD players, then CD and finally they no doubt try to ban human beings. Once they've finally gone out of business as a result of their own stupidity and paranoia, someone will re-invent CDs and we'll be back where we started. :)