ZTE PR direct line

[Guest rjm2k]

I'm a bit out of touch with the status of things at the moment but ZTE's PR company have been in touch asking how to approach the forums, I've made suggestions and mentioned that one of the main issues at the moment is the lack of uptodate kernel source. Can one of the devs please provide an updated to the following so I can send it on?

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion of a pinned thread with three messages. Right now, I’m not sure how that’s done – but I will look to get it sorted when we post. We are going to put up a post very soon I hope.

We’ve said to ZTE that we need to provide you with an answer to your original query about the source code before we post anything – we’ve positioned this as a case of “this is exactly the sort of thing you need to supply us with answers for, and if you can’t supply an answer for this one question, then we cannot seriously engage on the forums”. They seem to be taking it seriously.

The ZTE guys have raised the question internally. The ZTE R&D guys wondered if you could be more specific – you have to remember that we’re asking our English-speaking PR contacts in China and then the message is getting translated through a chain of people and back down again, so we need to be totally clear about everything (sometimes when we’re dealing with issues at ZTE, what at first seems like they’re being oblique and vague about something, is really just a misunderstanding).

The R&D people want to know:

- the URL that you are using to get the code?

- what you you’re doing with the code?

- which device or devices you are doing it to?

They possibly need to know the above to discover whether:

- The URL you’re going to is not the right one and that they have the right code somewhere else (hopefully this is the case!)

- You’re using the code on the wrong device (although I assume you’re using it on the Blade)

- You’re using the code in the wrong way – i.e. what you’re trying to do with it is not possible (again, I assume that you are not using it the ‘wrong way’ – whatever that might be)

- Or, that they actually have not got the right code up (which could easily be possible)

Here’s a copy of the first message that came back from the R&D teams:

"Our open source code for Blade is compatible for all the Blade device. As i know, the device sold to Europe and Japan and other countries can use this version of code. Our Blade has stabilized and we don't change this code long time. Please give more information, thanks."

As you can see our first message back didn’t really help, hence our request to them to clarify, hence the questions that they then posed.

I hope all this makes sense to you and that we’ll get that code!

I wanted to drop you a quick line to let you know that I am still chasing ZTE to get a solution for the issue you raise about getting the most up to date kernel source code.

I’ve been following the two forums for a couple of weeks now and can see now that the vast majority of posts are dealt with by other forum members.

ZTE are still very keen for us to get involved proactively and let forum members know that they have a communications channel into ZTE. Our challenge is that we do not have the technical knowledge to supply genuinely useful answers to posts and ZTE cannot seem to turn around questions fast enough.

I’m asking your advice really on how to behave in the forums without irritating the members. We were thinking of putting up a very transparent post that announces our presence as a PR agency that can redirect questions to ZTE – with the caveat that we might not be able to answer queries, but we will do our best to chase up responses.

Hi thanks for contacting me, I’m sure the community will look forward to your involvement. I think at the moment the biggest issue is that ZTE won’t release the most upto date kernel source code (which they have a legal obligation to do), they just fob people off by saying that the source is released but it’s clear it’s not the latest source as it won’t compile for the latest devices. Other than that the community seems to be getting on pretty well on it’s own.

[Guest Sebastian404]

I know this is the Blade forum but this might be a good idea to feedback about the other devices too....

ZTE only provide one set of 2.6.29 source code, and one set of 2.6.32 source code, no matter what device you select on the support website (http://support.zte.com.cn/support/news/NewsMain.aspx?type=service) you end up with the same archives:

http://support.zte.com.cn/support/uploads/...eral.part01.rar (etc)

or

http://support.zte.com.cn/support/uploads/..._2.6.7z.001.zip (etc)

both sets of code do build against the Blade (with a bit of messing about) but when it comes to other devices...

Light/V9 - there are missing files that prevent it from building at all.

Racer(mooncake) - builds and boots but Camera and Wifi are non-functional

Joe - builds and boots but touch screen is non responsive (so we don't know what else does not work)

As for the 2.6.32 source code, it only supports the blade.

Light/V9 - 2.2 versions are currently on sale in Austrailia & Spain (and probably others).

Racer(mooncake) - 2.2 versions are currently on sale in Chaina (and maybe others).

As to how I build them, I pull the config file from my physical device (/proc/config.gz) and then build it using the official Android NDK (android-ndk-r5b). This method seems to work fine for the Blade but not the other devices.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Sebastian404

[Guest HCDR.Jacob]

- the URL that you are using to get the code?

http://support.zte.com.cn/support/news/New...?newsId=1000502 - I know this isn't the latest because the config files pulled from devices shipped with froyo (/proc/config.gz) contain options which aren't even in the source we have been provided

- what you you’re doing with the code?

Using it to compile custom kernels for the Blade in order to make it compatible with cyanogenmod. (Other developers are doing similar things for their ROMs)

- which device or devices you are doing it to?

Just the Blade. I know some others have tried to build for other devices where source code is missing, but I personally only compile it for Blade

[Guest Tom G]

Light/V9 - there are missing files that prevent it from building at all.

Racer(mooncake) - builds and boots but Camera and Wifi are non-functional

Joe - builds and boots but touch screen is non responsive (so we don't know what else does not work)

As for the 2.6.32 source code, it only supports the blade.

Light/V9 - 2.2 versions are currently on sale in Austrailia & Spain (and probably others).

Racer(mooncake) - 2.2 versions are currently on sale in Chaina (and maybe others).

As to how I build them, I pull the config file from my physical device (/proc/config.gz) and then build it using the official Android NDK (android-ndk-r5b). This method seems to work fine for the Blade but not the other devices.

The V9 kernel builds and boots with very little modification to the code supplied by ZTE. The camera doesn't work (incomplete source) and USB has some issues (so does the touchscreen, but I've fixed that).

All I ask is that they honor the license the code was provided to them under (GPL) and release the code as required by the license, including the ar6000 code (the ar6000 code provided on the ZTE site is not complete, it does work with slight modification, but not properly).

While the code supplied by ZTE can be modified to work we shouldn't need to modify it. ZTE should be providing the source used to compile the shipped builds, not an older version of the code that doesn't really work.

[Guest Jekle]

If ZTE are evaluating Gingerbread for the Orange San Francisco and bringing it to the UK consumer in Q2, Couldn't we be ever so cheeky and ask for the 2.6.35 source code? Cyanogen Mod would be able to take full advantage of 2.3 and to recognise different hardware revisions and that touch screen revisions that didn't work with 003Z source.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Jekle

[Guest Sebastian404]

The V9 kernel builds and boots with very little modification to the code supplied by ZTE. The camera doesn't work (incomplete source) and USB has some issues (so does the touchscreen, but I've fixed that).

Unless they have updated it, the 2.6.29 source was missing the board define files for the v9. if you take the source (as released) and a .config from the device it wont build.

I assume your talking about the 2.6.31 source? there is yet to be an 'offical' release for the v9 for that.

[Guest Tom G]

Unless they have updated it, the 2.6.29 source was missing the board define files for the v9. if you take the source (as released) and a .config from the device it wont build.

I assume your talking about the 2.6.31 source? there is yet to be an 'offical' release for the v9 for that.

I am talking about 2.6.32 and as I said it needs a little modification, but not much. The board file is also missing in 2.6.32, but its not difficult to make one that works.

As I said in my previous post, while the source can be modified to work it shouldn't need to be.

[Guest wbaw]

The V9 kernel builds and boots with very little modification to the code supplied by ZTE. The camera doesn't work (incomplete source) and USB has some issues (so does the touchscreen, but I've fixed that).

All I ask is that they honor the license the code was provided to them under (GPL) and release the code as required by the license, including the ar6000 code (the ar6000 code provided on the ZTE site is not complete, it does work with slight modification, but not properly).

While the code supplied by ZTE can be modified to work we shouldn't need to modify it. ZTE should be providing the source used to compile the shipped builds, not an older version of the code that doesn't really work.

It looks like they could have the ar6000 code under some different kind of license.

They accidentally included some of the .h header files in the wifi directory on some of their recent blade froyo stock roms ... here is the comment from the top of those files...

//------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// <copyright file="dbglog.h" company="Atheros">

// Copyright © 2004-2007 Atheros Corporation. All rights reserved.

//

// The software source and binaries included in this development package are

// licensed, not sold. You, or your company, received the package under one

// or more license agreements. The rights granted to you are specifically

// listed in these license agreement(s). All other rights remain with Atheros

// Communications, Inc., its subsidiaries, or the respective owner including

// those listed on the included copyright notices. Distribution of any

// portion of this package must be in strict compliance with the license

// agreement(s) terms.

// </copyright>

//

// <summary>

// Wifi driver for AR6002

// </summary>

//

//------------------------------------------------------------------------------

//==============================================================================

// Author(s): ="Atheros"

//==============================================================================

Edited June 16, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest unrandomsam]

If ZTE are evaluating Gingerbread for the Orange San Francisco and bringing it to the UK consumer in Q2, Couldn't we be ever so cheeky and ask for the 2.6.35 source code? Cyanogen Mod would be able to take full advantage of 2.3 and to recognise different hardware revisions and that touch screen revisions that didn't work with 003Z source.

The source code is already available afaik

https://github.com/t0mm13b/ZTE-Blade-2.6.35.7

What we need is the radio bits so we can use it.

[Guest Jekle]

The source code is already available afaik

https://github.com/t0mm13b/ZTE-Blade-2.6.35.7

What we need is the radio bits so we can use it.

It also looks like they are trying to port 2.6.38!

[Guest SeanJacko]

Hi guys - I work for ZTE's PR team. As noted in the initial post on this thread, ZTE are keen to help out wherever they can.

I will be making a note of direct issues and feeding them back to ZTE with the intention of helping out wherever they can.

Thanks in advance for your patience - and thanks also for your interest in ZTE and the Blade.

[Guest wbaw]

They have to release the source code for any modifications of any released kernel, because it is GPL 2 code, the software license requires it http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

It'd be much better PR & lead to more reliable software if they had a public version control system, like a github, so that we can easily see exactly what changes have been made by zte & suggest other changes to improve it.

Edited June 22, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest sane?]

It looks like they could have the ar6000 code under some different kind of license.

They accidentally included some of the .h header files in the wifi directory on some of their recent blade froyo stock roms ... here is the comment from the top of those files...

Looks like Atheros are asserting ownership and licencing restrictions on the wifi driver code. This is a touch dodgy anyway (since it pretty close to be being statically compiled in with the kernel and therefore covered under the GPL requirements). However Atheros have form on wifi drivers:

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?st...070927103522813

So it would look to be appropriate to release that code anyway, and in any case it shouldn't get in the way of releasing other bits (eg the kernel).

[Guest Jekle]

Hi guys - I work for ZTE's PR team. As noted in the initial post on this thread, ZTE are keen to help out wherever they can.

I will be making a note of direct issues and feeding them back to ZTE with the intention of helping out wherever they can.

Thanks in advance for your patience - and thanks also for your interest in ZTE and the Blade.

That's great Sean, Much appriciated, Could you get back to us when you are getting somewhere with ZTE?

Thank you

[Guest wbaw]

Looks like Atheros are asserting ownership and licencing restrictions on the wifi driver code. This is a touch dodgy anyway (since it pretty close to be being statically compiled in with the kernel and therefore covered under the GPL requirements). However Atheros have form on wifi drivers:

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?st...070927103522813

So it would look to be appropriate to release that code anyway, and in any case it shouldn't get in the way of releasing other bits (eg the kernel).

As far as I know Atheros wrote the wifi drivers & they're the only copyright holders on the wifi drivers (apart from the ath5k driver authors who released ther code under a bsd license), so they can do exactly as they want with the wifi code. That includes dual licensing it, releasing a GPL version & a proprietary version under an NDA (which is what they usually do with device manufacturers), there's no legal problem with doing that at all, as far as I'm aware. They don't have any responsibility to make the GPL drivers work either & to be fair, it's good that they do release a GPL version of some of their code, some other hardware manufacturers don't release any. It would be a problem if somebody else from outside Atheros had written some of the code & contributed it to the GPL source, kept their rights as copyright holders, didn't agree to it being used under an NDA & found their code in the NDA version, but that's not likely.

The Linux kernel however has many copyright holders that contributed different parts of it & it's all released as GPL2 code. ZTE only own a small part of the copyright on their modified version & if they distribute compiled binary copies without making the full source code available, including all of their modifications, then they could be sued by one (or more) of the other Linux kernel copyright holders (which includes several large companies, some in competition with ZTE). There is no real argument over the kernel, they must release the source or risk getting sued.

It would make it much easier for everybody, for us as customers & developers, for Linux kernel copyright holders & for ZTE themselves if they made their development process more open.

Edited June 22, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest SeanJacko]

They have to release the source code for any modifications of any released kernel, because it is GPL 2 code, the software license requires it http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

It'd be much better PR & lead to more reliable software if they had a public version control system, like a github, so that we can easily see exactly what changes have been made by zte & suggest other changes to improve it.

Rest assured, I will certainly raise this issue with ZTE - I hope to have answers for you soon.