Guest Varyag Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Anyone kind enough to build a OC superboot for us? oh, you are so funny... lol... lol...
Guest Lens_flare Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) [RUS]наc накололи, да? Нуну, доверяй после этого асеру[/RUS] So, no OC? Strange Acer policy,really... Edited February 10, 2011 by Lens_flare
Guest xaueious Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 So how do we know if this is legit if we can't even run it on our machines?
Guest mmmmbuti Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Isn't this in violation of GPL? should we report Acer to Google or to someone else? Edited February 11, 2011 by mmmmbuti
Guest xdxdxdxdxdx Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Isn't this in violation of GPL? should we report Acer to Google or to someone else? it's possible???
Guest gnufabio Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 it's possible??? If the GPL is violated, you can also denounce the Acer...but i don't think there is a violation
Guest Master_T Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Isn't this in violation of GPL? should we report Acer to Google or to someone else? I actaully wrote the Linux Foundation about the issue one month ago, they didn't even bother to reply, but to be honest I don't know if I got the right address, their website isn't very clear. EDIT: quoting from the GPLv2: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, :P Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. As I see it, Acer IS in violation, even if the supposed source they released is the real thing (see the part I put in bold). Edited February 11, 2011 by Master_T
Guest Vlad Pisarev Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Pls say me there I can write about sources from Acer... I want to help you :P
Guest Varyag Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Pls say me there I can write about sources from Acer... I want to help you :P ya ne ponimat 4to ti imet vvidu dazhe na russkom english... how do you wwant to help, comrade? and what you want?
Guest gnufabio Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Let's report acer violation :P
Guest Master_T Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Let's report acer violation :P Let's do it! Here is the email I sent out last month, but I really think I sent it to the wrong address: Hi I hope this is the right address to write to, since I'm not an expert in this kind of matters (maybe if it's not, you may know who to contact??) I write to report a violation reguarding a GPL-Violating piece of software released by Acer inc. In particular, the company distributes a modified binary of the 2.6.29 Linux Kernel inside their Acer Liquid's smartphone ROM (the download of the binary rom can be found here: http://www.acer.co.uk/ac/en/GB/content/drivers (click smartphone --> liquid --> LiduiqE --> OS)) without distributing the correct kernel sourcedoce, as they instead should, as GPLv2 says: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, :D Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. The copy of the sources they provide (which you can find by clicking on the "Document" tab instead of the "OS" one in the page I linked above) refers to a much older build of the ROM, different from the one used in the "4.002.14.EMEA.GEN1" ROM they distribute. Apart from not being the correct version (and thus already in violation of the license), the source also doesn't comply with the definition given by the fragment of the GPLv2 I cited above, since it is missing parts and also parts of the compilation scripts and code are wrong/broken, thus making them useless. I, among others, have tried to contact Acer inc. about this issue, but in one case they willingly refused to comply with the license, and the other times they didn't even respond to our inquiries. I don't know if this email will do any good, but at least I tried Sincerely We should improve on this, specifying: -More details as to how the license is violated (which parts in particular of the source/install scripts are missing/broken) -Direct link to the pages where the source and the ROMS are (I could'nt get a direct link due to the way acer's website is designed And of course: -disocver to whom/which address to report this
Guest gnufabio Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 -disocover to whom/which address to report this [email protected]
Guest Lesheg Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 I could'nt get a direct link due to the way acer's website is designed This link is not suitable? http://global-download.acer.com/GDFiles/Do...&SC=EMEA_23
Guest Master_T Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 [email protected] That's the address I tried before, it didn't work (I mean, they didn't respond to me). This figures, since I don't think the Linux Kernel is part of GNU, it's owned by the Linux Foundation.
Guest gnufabio Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 That's the address I tried before, it didn't work (I mean, they didn't respond to me). This figures, since I don't think the Linux Kernel is part of GNU, it's owned by the Linux Foundation. The violated license is the Gnu/Gpl one :P
Guest Master_T Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 The violated license is the Gnu/Gpl one :P Yes, but that doesn't mean anything... tens of thousands of pieces of software are released under the GPL, but the violation should be reported to whoever holds the rights of the software being violated, as only them can act upon such reports and decide what to do about it. The correct people to contact are the ones at the Linux Foundation, but there isn't a clear way to contact them about such things, at least not on their website...
Guest Gnask Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Yes, but that doesn't mean anything... tens of thousands of pieces of software are released under the GPL, but the violation should be reported to whoever holds the rights of the software being violated, as only them can act upon such reports and decide what to do about it. The correct people to contact are the ones at the Linux Foundation, but there isn't a clear way to contact them about such things, at least not on their website... Have you tried this one? [email protected] "General contact for the Linux Foundation. All mail to this address is properly routed to the appropriate recipients"
Guest Master_T Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Have you tried this one? [email protected] "General contact for the Linux Foundation. All mail to this address is properly routed to the appropriate recipients" Yeah we should try that one. But first I think we should refine the letter, listing precisely what is missing/broken from the source.
Guest mmmmbuti Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) I have found this project http://gpl-violations.org/ What can I do if I encounter a GPL violation? The gpl-violations.org project keeps track of reported GPL violations in its internal request tracking system. If you want to report an alleged violation, please write to [email protected], and make sure to ``enable --verbose mode'', i.e. include as much details as possible. Edited February 13, 2011 by mmmmbuti
Guest Master_T Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 I have found this project http://gpl-violations.org/ I had found that one too, but I think it's discontinued... last update dates back to 2008. I think the best chance is the Linux Foundation. What we need right now, at least in my opinion, is for one of the devs to drop in and make a list of "what is wrong" with the source, so we can be specific in our report.
Guest mmmmbuti Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 I had found that one too, but I think it's discontinued... last update dates back to 2008. I think the best chance is the Linux Foundation. Oh no, the mailing lists are still running http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/...ary/thread.html Yes, we need more details of what is missing, so we can write a complete report.
Guest errmsg Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Isn't the kernel config in acer-q8k-a1-dvt_defconfig ?
Guest Dario93 Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Isn't the kernel config in acer-q8k-a1-dvt_defconfig ? Nop, the configuration file is named .config, usually :P
Guest errmsg Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) Nop, the configuration file is named .config, usually :P I have to disagree with you, defaults for .configs are taken from the configs dir, and in our case that's the file in arch/arm/configs/acer-q8k-a1-dvt_defconfig. So, I succeeded in cross-compiling the sources from acer with the following changes, copying the defconfig to ~/.config, applying the patch from http://paste.ubuntu.com/566676/ and running the build. Looks like Acer just physically removed some netfilter sources (and if they are added there then compilation breaks in more than one weird way) and released whatever they had. So, this kernel can be built. I don't see the GPL violation here. Update: Not only it can be built, it also boots pretty fine: # cat version Linux version 2.6.29 (rtg@lucidity) (gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC) ) #1 PREEMPT Sun Feb 13 17:41:04 EET 2011 Edited February 13, 2011 by errmsg
Guest endamaco Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 I have to disagree with you, defaults for .configs are taken from the configs dir, and in our case that's the file in arch/arm/configs/acer-q8k-a1-dvt_defconfig. So, I succeeded in cross-compiling the sources from acer with the following changes, copying the defconfig to ~/.config, applying the patch from http://paste.ubuntu.com/566676/ and running the build. Looks like Acer just physically removed some netfilter sources (and if they are added there then compilation breaks in more than one weird way) and released whatever they had. So, this kernel can be built. I don't see the GPL violation here. Update: Not only it can be built, it also boots pretty fine: # cat version Linux version 2.6.29 (rtg@lucidity) (gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC) ) #1 PREEMPT Sun Feb 13 17:41:04 EET 2011 Is all hardware working with the boot you've just compiled?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now