Getting 2.1 source from T-Mobile Hungary

[Guest gusthy]

It seems that one of the most important issues is to grab .29 source somehow.

Since I'm working at a subsidiary of Magyar Telecom, of which T-Mobile Hungary is also a subsidiary, I will try to find someone to get some info.

Huawei says at their forum that they gave the sources to T-Mobile. So maybe they have it.

[Guest gusthy]

It seems that one of the most important issues is to grab .29 source somehow.

Since I'm working at a subsidiary of Magyar Telecom, of which T-Mobile Hungary is also a subsidiary, I will try to find someone to get some info.

Huawei says at their forum that they gave the sources to T-Mobile. So maybe they have it.

I called the group manager of T-Mobile HU device testing group. He promised me to look after the source and to call me back.

He also tries to check what's about 2.2 on Pulse, but he says the real memory optimisation will belong to 2.6.

[Guest phildrip]

Cool... does he mean 2.6 kernel version or Android? Must be kernel... seems he got his wires crossed.

Or maybe I have. :-S

[Guest gusthy]

Cool... does he mean 2.6 kernel version or Android? Must be kernel... seems he got his wires crossed.

Or maybe I have. :-S

Not just kernel... The whole system integrated.

[Guest BigBearMDC]

I called the group manager of T-Mobile HU device testing group. He promised me to look after the source and to call me back.

He also tries to check what's about 2.2 on Pulse, but he says the real memory optimisation will belong to 2.6.

That's funny, you maybe noticed that the topic @ Huawei's forum is made by me :D

Anyway, I contacted T-Mo HU asking for the source a week ago and got the reply today.

We did not get the kernel source but only the full update package. You'll have to ask Huawei for the source bla bla bla ...

Hopefully you can squeeze something out of them :lol:

BTW I think the memory optimization is part of the .32 kernel, I guess that's what he wanted to say :D

Best regards,

BigBear

Edited July 2, 2010 by BigBearMDC

[Guest gusthy]

That's funny, you maybe noticed that the topic @ Huawei's forum is made by me :)

Anyway, I contacted T-Mo HU asking for the source a week ago and got the reply today.

Hopefully you can squeeze something out of them :lol:

BTW I think the memory optimization is part of the .32 kernel, I guess that's what he wanted to say :)

Best regards,

BigBear

We shall see :D If this guy cannot get it, then nobody can, probably T-MobUK, but they didnt release 2.1 :D

Yes, I saw your topic there...

[Guest Josh04]

I emailed Huawei requesting the kernel source about three weeks ago, no reply yet : /

[Guest gusthy]

I emailed Huawei requesting the kernel source about three weeks ago, no reply yet : /

Sure, It always has been T-Mobile who published the kernel source, AFAIK

[Guest BigBearMDC]

Sure, It always has been T-Mobile who published the kernel source, AFAIK

Nope that's not (entirely) true, the QMR .27 Pulse source has been published by Huawei directly.

[Guest screwface]

I thought they are FORCED to release this?

[Guest gusthy]

I thought they are FORCED to release this?

No, why, who would force them?

[Guest DanWilson]

No, why, who would force them?

Us...

[Guest Stevos]

No, why, who would force them?

Stuff distributed under the GPL must be distributed with the source, or with a written offer to provide the source for a nominal transfer fee (ie. pretty much free). Part of the code (at least the custom linux kernel) is GPL, and should be subject to this.

Since T Mobile hungary (and several others) have officially released this (they have definitively released it, rather than it leaking), presumably they could be made to comply and release source for all GPL components.

Not sure if it might be worth asking them directly? Without the non-gpl driver modules' source I doubt it would be much use?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Stevos

[Guest DanWilson]

Stuff distributed under the GPL must be distributed with the source, or with a written offer to provide the source for a nominal transfer fee (ie. pretty much free). Part of the code (at least the custom linux kernel) is GPL, and should be subject to this.

Since T Mobile hungary have officially released this (they have definitively release it, rather than it leaking), presumably they could be made to comply and release source for all GPL components.

Not sure if it might be worth asking them directly? Without the non-gpl driver modules' source I doubt it would be much use?

So we can take Huawei to court? Screw the spies (read Repacking UPDATA.APP), we need lawyers!!

[Guest Stevos]

So we can take Huawei to court? Screw the spies (read Repacking UPDATA.APP), we need lawyers!!

No, we couldn't, but the copyright holder could. I am not a lawyer but I *think* standard procedure is to make a formal request for the source, wait for a response, then refer the case to the copyright holder(s) if the distributor won't comply. Tracking down the copyright holders might be tricky (maybe the FSF could help?), but Torvalds (amongst many many others) would hold copyright on a lot of aspects of the kernel, and Google would hold copyright on their mods (wait locks etc). Off the top of my head I don't know which parts of a distribution are GPLed other than the kernel.

Bear in mind that it wouldn't come to that as they would no doubt release the GPL source if requested, but the GPL stuff alone would not be enough to build a working system without the non-GPLed drivers and stuff.

I'm not sure if they might be forced to release the source and spec for the UPDATA ystem, if it could be argued that it is required for the end user to be able to use the GPL sources and it were a linked piece of software (I doubt it, but it depends how it fits together)

Edited July 2, 2010 by Stevos

[Guest Stevos]

I'm not sure if they might be forced to release the source and spec for the UPDATA ystem, if it could be argued that it is required for the end user to be able to use the GPL sources and it were a linked piece of software (I doubt it, but it depends how it fits together)

OMG, I just realised - I think the GPL *may* require them to release full info on the UPDATA system and the required checksums and keys etc.

There's a section in the GPL v3 intended specifically for this (section 6) designed to make sure that users have the information necessary to be able to modify the GPL software (and have it work)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

"

What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?

Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization.

When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems."

AND according to this, it appears they may be required to give us whatever cryptographic keys are necessary to allow us to modify and install new versions:

"I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance."

Wow, I almost can't believe that - can anyone who really understands this look into it, as it appears the GPL may grant us more rights than it first appears. :D :lol:

[Guest gusthy]

OMG, I just realised - I think the GPL *may* require them to release full info on the UPDATA system and the required checksums and keys etc.

There's a section in the GPL v3 intended specifically for this (section 6) designed to make sure that users have the information necessary to be able to modify the GPL software (and have it work)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

"

What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?

Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization.

When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems."

AND according to this, it appears they may be required to give us whatever cryptographic keys are necessary to allow us to modify and install new versions:

"I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance."

Wow, I almost can't believe that - can anyone who really understands this look into it, as it appears the GPL may grant us more rights than it first appears. :D :lol:

No.

GPL does NOT require you to distribute ylur own part"s source code, otherwise it would be impossible to produce proprietary prlducts based on open source.

Lets see an example.

If in their Linux kernel, modify lets say, swap.c, this file had to be open sourced.

If they write a new device driver, it is not neccessary to distribute with source code.

[Guest Stevos]

No.

GPL does NOT require you to distribute ylur own part"s source code, otherwise it would be impossible to produce proprietary prlducts based on open source.

Lets see an example.

If in their Linux kernel, modify lets say, swap.c, this file had to be open sourced.

If they write a new device driver, it is not neccessary to distribute with source code.

I quite agree in general terms - the GPL only applies to GPLed code and code derived from it -*however* the GPL v3 also appears to insist (via the anti-tivoisation clauses referenced above) that the end user have availability of all information required to allow them to modify, recompile and reinstall the software.

A sealed and undocumented installer system containing (or wrapping) GPL code (we know at least some of the code inside UPDATA.APP is GPL) and requiring cryptographic signatures and undocumented checksums to modify and recompile/install new software *would appear* to be in violation of the GPL.

It appears to be exactly the situation they discuss with respect to Tivo preventing end user maintenance and modification of GPL code, and one of the main reasons that the GPL was updated to v3.

"What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?

Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization.

When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.

"

If this does apply as it appears it could have big implications.

EDIT:

Ah - except the kernel isn't clearly licensed under v3 for various reasons (though parts of it might be). If any other GPL code is contained within the UPDATA system (most code will be licensed under "version x or higher"), it should mean that this clause applies. Does anyone know of any other GPL code used within android distributions?

Edited July 3, 2010 by Stevos

[Guest gusthy]

on the other hand, on Pulse kernel can be modified without using encryption methods using Androif SDK whivh is public. So Huawri is not violating GPL v3 with this encryption.

[Guest DanWilson]

So should we make a "formal"request to Huawei for the kernel source and ask them nicely for the drivers while we're there? It'd be nice if they even replied though, maybe we could tell them it would get us (and all Pulse users) Froyo, and save Huawei the work (not the way to think, but they might like it! :lol: )

Meh.

[Guest Stevos]

So should we make a "formal"request to Huawei for the kernel source and ask them nicely for the drivers while we're there? It'd be nice if they even replied though, maybe we could tell them it would get us (and all Pulse users) Froyo, and save Huawei the work (not the way to think, but they might like it! :lol: )

Meh.

The kernel source - yes. At least it's clear cut that they must provide the source for that.

They won't give us the drivers anyway as they likely aren't licensed to distribute the source for them. The whole situation makes a mockery of the concept of open source code (the open source aspect of the kernel and all other parts of the stack is useless to the end user without means to recompile it and some way to build in the drivers)

This is why I've been trying to work out if the GPL (or any other licensing terms on other components) can be leveraged to allow us any more access to the build process (partitioning, packaging, signing etc).

As things stand we are effectively running a closed (but somewhat hackable) platform.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Stevos

[Guest gusthy]

The kernel source - yes. At least it's clear cut that they must provide the source for that.

They won't give us the drivers anyway as they likely aren't licensed to distribute the source for them. The whole situation makes a mockery of the concept of open source code (the open source aspect of the kernel and all other parts of the stack is useless to the end user without means to recompile it and some way to build in the drivers)

This is why I've been trying to work out if the GPL (or any other licensing terms on other components) can be leveraged to allow us any more access to the build process (partitioning, packaging, signing etc).

As things stand we are effectively running a closed (but somewhat hackable) platform.

I am nost so pessimistic - they released 1.5 driver sourcrs as well as mini 2.1 sources.

What I miss is the source modifications of android itself - rild and similar things.

[Guest McSpoon]

What I miss is the source modifications of android itself - rild and similar things.

Absolutely. It's been ages since I last looked at the AOSP source-code but I recall most of the /system/lib/lib* modules were just empty stubs because they are hardware specific. So even when we get the kernel source code it still isn't enough for us to create FroYo/Gingerbread ROMs. The next problem would be upgrading all of the proprietary lib*.so modules that were coded specifically for the U8220 hardware. Clearly our librild.so only works on the U8220. And libcamera.so, etc. I've no idea how many of them would need upgrading or how we would do it without the code (I think that stuff is allowed to be proprietary and withheld).

[Guest robertopero]

Any news?

[Guest Speckles]

If you can find someone who has written some part of the Kernel that Huawei has used (so they have copyright on the file that they wrote), then that person can demand Huawei to follow the GPL and release the source code.

Else if you have the binary, you can request Huawei to release the source code, but you can't demand it or take them to court.

Huawei must release everything that is dependant on other GPL licensed code. They are not allowed to taint the license of the kernel by including proprietary (closed-source) modules. The only thing they can do is use an open-source module to talk to a closed-source library (that way everyone can recompile that module and thus satisfy the GPL)