Source codes

[Guest nicksoph]

One of the most regular ZTE queries on the forum is regarding the release of source code. I hope this response helps out..

The response misses the point entirely and probably does harm to ZTE.

Taking each point you make individually;

ZTE is aware of how important it is to make code available;

Important? It is a legal requirement! The question is; Are you in breach of your legal duty and thereby breaking the law?

and as such is in the process of creating a central site online that will feature all available code – apologies for the hold up, building this site might take some time.

Is this is being offered as a reason for the delay? This cannot be justified - if you are under a legal obligation to publish the source code and you are incapable of putting the files on one of your own websites there are numerous options available to ZTE, including repositories specifically designed for the publishing of source code, so the publishing of the files is not in any way dependent on your central site and seems unlikely to be accepted as an excuse not to meet your legal obligations.

With regards to specific questions regarding the 2.6.35 kernel, here's the official response.

"There is currently no ZTE product launched with this code. The leaked ROM must be based on a test unit.

This is completely irrelevant.

ZTE cannot release code for unreleased devices

What is the nature of this impossibility? Does the "cannot" denote an inability due to not being able to find the source code or some such thing? Why can't ZTE publish what they have, by accepting the GNU, agreed to publish?

and due to commercial sensitivity cannot release code to a public version control system.

I have no idea what this is supposed to do other than distract from the issue or maybe show you don't really understand your duties under the GNU licence - the items that you are obliged to publish could legally be copied to such a public version control system by anybody.

ZTE seems hell bent on shooting itself in the foot.

There are those who look for excuses to suggest ZTE and other technology companies might hide secret code or backdoors in their products and it seems likely that several large contracts might have gone ZTE's way had they not been perceived as a risk and yet rather than overcome these issues by sensible openness they compound suspicions by not releasing source code for kernels and programs which seems, on the face of it, they are legally obliged to do.

Edited July 5, 2011 by nicksoph

[Guest appolus]

+1 for the new ZTE Blade 2.3.4 source code so I can overclock my device. Bring it on ZTE.

hehe i agree i am waiting eagerly for that. and also some other bugg fixes :)

[Guest wbaw]

A big reason that the phone has sold so well is that it is cheap & easy to hack to put better software on. ZTE should see the opportunity there & encourage it... Like Samsung & other big name Android device manufacturers are starting to.

Edited July 6, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest Simon O]

When did everyone become lawyers and experts in GPL?

ZTE have not done anything wrong. They have released 3 sets of kernel code for the Blade. First was Eclair, then the 003Z Froyo kernel followed by the recent Froyo kernel code.

Until ZTE have a device on the open market running Gingerbread then they have NO legal obligation to release the relevant kernel code. Of course if they release the device then do not release the kernel code they haven't fulfilled legal obligations and you have a right to complain.

wbaw wrote above: "The GPL2 license states that full source code, including any modifications, must be made available to anybody that you make a binary copy available to". As ZTE have not made available any device running Gingerbread or any downloadable Gingerbread based ROM, they are within their right not to release the kernel code.

Now I'm sure somebody will be thinking "But a phone was leaked with Gingerbread on! So this means ZTE must now release the code". Wrong. ZTE did not make the binaries available, it was leaked. ZTE, again, are legally allowed not to release the kernel code.

Once the Skate is on the open market then ZTE will make the code available. Until then, kindly stop begging and whining for the code.

[Guest wbaw]

ZTE (or at least an employee) clearly has made it available to somebody at some point, otherwise we wouldn't have it. The GPL says nothing about selling phones, or official release dates, or any of that nonsense. It states that it doesn't matter if the code was sold or not. You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to read what the GPL says, it is very clearly written & it was written to prevent this kind of thing happening. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been working with GPL software for over 10 years & I've studied every last word of it, I make my living from it. ZTE & a few other Android phone manufacturers are flouting it, in my non-legal but professional opinion.

The source code they've released in the past hasn't been complete, they've updated it for new stock rom versions for phones with new hardware variations (b20 touch screen issue, etc) without releasing the updates. They're clearly violating the GPL.

Each of the download links for the different Froyo updates & other downloads containing the Linux kernel should have links straight to the exact source code used to build that kernel, those pages don't have any links to any source code, you've got to hunt for it, even when you've found it then it's not complete. If we want to get really technical, then it's all in one package, which contains GPL 2 code, it could be argued that it should all be under a GPL 2 compatible licence. This is why large Linux distributors, like Red Hat, don't include non-GPL compatible code in their distributions & make sure that anything non-gpl compatible is separate, the legal issues are real.

It's not ZTE's code to hide, there are many other copyright holders that have also contributed to the Linux & Android kernel projects, they all have rights too. They all modified & distributed GPL software, but ZTE aren't sticking to the licence agreement.

Anyway, whatever the legal requirements, it'd be good if ZTE went further than not even doing the bare minimum necessary to avoid being sued. It'd be good if they shared more of their source code, like other manufacturers do, it'd help them to improve their phones & it'd help to increase their sales. It's got to be one of the best PR moves they can do, being more open with their source code, they don't lose anything, it costs very little & the benefits are huge.

Lets face it, ZTE don't make money from the fantastic & unique bug free software that they write, they make money by selling cheap phones. We're just asking for permission to help ZTE to make them work better, for free.

I do feel like a hypocrite, going off like this, while I'm distributing a rom that also violates the GPL, but it only violates it because ZTE violated it first, and this new kernel does seem a lot better than the old one. If I had the source code, then I'd release it straight away. Also, I'm not a big company, I'm totally broke, so it wouldn't really be worth anybody's time to sue me for anything - if any copyright holders are upset by it enough to want me to take it down, then they only have to ask. That isn't how I want it to be, but the old kernel is a bit crap, the wifi doesn't work, it makes my phone unusable, so until the CM7 team can get the source code for that kernel ... I'm compromising my morals in order to make my phone work as it should.

Edited July 7, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest wbaw]

Releasing source code onto a site like Github & getting the community involved in the official ZTE software development process would help them get the latest versions of Android to market faster, which is important, because they're lagging behind other manufacturers. Orange UK are still selling San Franciscos with Android 2.1, which is well out of date now & has serious security vulnerabilities.

flibblesan: I know you don't want us to give the official PR guy a hard time & scare him off, but it is quite an important issue. If we can get ZTE to change their minds on this, everybody wins & we're all happy, we all get cheap phones with great software that we can freely modify & ZTE make billions, obviously modaco would benefit from better roms too. If not, then maybe my next phone will be a Samsung, or whoever is being a bit more open with their code.

I can't see any possible commercial reason that it wouldn't be in ZTE's best interests to release every bit of source code that they possibly can & get the community involved in official rom development. Most of the other manufacturers have better software anyway, I bet they're not all waiting for the day they can take ZTE's amazing contacts software that breaks lots of standard Android functions, or any of the other buggy ZTE custom crap (there's a lot of room for improvement in the zte apps & the rom in general). They could even release the parts that they wrote as GPL code, so that any other manufacturer which uses it has to share their improvements with ZTE & the rest of the world.

Edited July 7, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest iNoobz2Droid]

At least they should notice how active this sub forums is (6,595 topics 117,632 replies), where a huge part is about custom roms and how to upgrade to them.

Furthermore i know a couple of people who decided to get the blade because they have not to stick with android 2.1 until some "official" upgrade of the manufacturer arrives (which often never happens) and have access to several custom roms.

To improve the quality of these "free to choose" custom roms it would be (like said before) a win-win situation to make sources available. (win for customers -> better roms and win for manufacturer -> more customers because better roms).

In the case of the newer leaked kernel i know that it looks a bit strange to release source codes of a software that is not even official available but it runs so much more smooth i wondering how well that goes on blade @710mhz

Edited July 7, 2011 by iNoobz2Droid

[Guest nicksoph]

Only released devices require that the source code be released?

No. This is not justifiable by any text in the GPL.

If ZTE compile the code and pass on that code to any of their own engineers and one of those engineers passes on the code to anyone else (even against the wishes of ZTE,) then both the engineer and who ever he passes it on to is entitled to the source code.

I believe it is right to complain about ZTE's lack of openness. They have made a business, a large part of which, is based on open source software. I think those who set up and have added to that open library would feel that was a good thing. Those thousands of previous authors who have given their time to get us to where we are now ask very little but what they do ask is that those who build on their work acknowledge them and work in the same spirit of openness and sharing. It is not some sort of favour to publish the source code it is a legal requirement albeit based upon a benevolent philosophy.

Without that history of open source software ZTE and many other companies may not have even existed.

Im not wishing to whine. I feel grateful that so many people have given freely but think that those who have built businesses on that generousness should be aware of the history and to at least recognise their obligations if they take advantage of it but preferably to embrace and extend that spirit.

Edited July 8, 2011 by nicksoph

[Guest Simon O]

There is no ZTE Blade on the market that comes with Gingerbread or a kernel built from 2.6.35 code. ZTE have released all the kernel code to date that covers the kernels used in all variants of the Blade.

Those of you whining and moaning and demanding ZTE release .35 kernel code, in my opinion, haven't got a sodding clue what do even do with the code.

People are under the impression that if ZTE did release .35 kernel code then it would be the magic 'fix everything' solution to all the problems that the CM7 ROM has, thus creating the mythical 'perfect rom'. Sorry... aint gonna happen.

[Guest steeperton]

Only released devices require that the source code be released?

No. This is not justifiable by any text in the GPL.

If ZTE compile the code and pass on that code to any of their own engineers and one of those engineers passes on the code to anyone else (even against the wishes of ZTE,) then both the engineer and who ever he passes it on to is entitled to the source code.

The engineer probably has the source code. He passed on the leak, he has to provide it to whoever he provided the leak to.

ZTE have to provide the source to the engineer who leaked.

The engineer has to provide the source to the user who they passed the leak to.

But, ZTE do not have to supply the source to the leak "user", the community, or anyone else.

Just be patient! ZTE have said it'll be here soon enough.

Edited July 8, 2011 by steeperton

[Guest Jekle]

Instead of being headless chickens about this, why not ask for the Froyo 2.6.32 Source Code as ZTE have violated the GPL2 Agreement so there are under no obligation to release Gingerbread Series 2.6.35 source code until the ZTE skate or ZTE Blade receive an offical update or a device shipped with Gingerbread. They have only released Source Code for the LIbero 003Z in January, and we know the source code has been updated but not shared with us. I suppose ZTE are not being loyal to there customers and well not as bad as Huawei for Source Code, We still had to beg for the Froyo Source Code. I suppose this is what you get from a Chinese Company. Good Product, crap after sales service.

[Guest hedgepigdaniel]

I suppose this is what you get from a Chinese Company. Good Product, crap after sales service.

I suppose these are the constructive statements that will give the forums a good relationship with ZTE...

[Guest Jekle]

I suppose these are the constructive statements that will give the forums a good relationship with ZTE...

tbh, We shouldn't have to beg PR Agents to Contact ZTE to get them to release something so easy, So how can ZTE be punished GPL 2 means sod all when big companies can make any excuse and just come out with a tap on the wrist.

https://opensource.samsung.com/

Look there Samsung have released every source code for their Android Devices and Given the New Code when they update it including ones for different Parts of the world, I hope ZTE can learn from Samsung

ZTE obviously know they can get away with these things and only do what they can't get away with.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Jekle

[Guest hedgepigdaniel]

It doesn't matter who is at fault, we can still be polite and stick to the issues we are discussing rather than making silly generalisations about Chinese business

[Guest Jekle]

It doesn't matter who is at fault, we can still be polite and stick to the issues we are discussing rather than making silly generalisations about Chinese business

Fair Enough

[Guest Simon O]

Instead of being headless chickens about this, why not ask for the Froyo 2.6.32 Source Code as ZTE have violated the GPL2 Agreement so there are under no obligation to release Gingerbread Series 2.6.35 source code until the ZTE skate or ZTE Blade receive an offical update or a device shipped with Gingerbread. They have only released Source Code for the LIbero 003Z in January, and we know the source code has been updated but not shared with us. I suppose ZTE are not being loyal to there customers and well not as bad as Huawei for Source Code, We still had to beg for the Froyo Source Code. I suppose this is what you get from a Chinese Company. Good Product, crap after sales service.

Yeah.. comments like that don't help.

As for froyo kernel, ZTE already released two sets of Froyo code that is blade compatible. First code released in January, second code released June. ZTE use the same kernel code for all the Android devices they have on the market. The only thing they have done wrong is not mention that the latest kernel code covers the blade.

January code

June code

[Guest q123456]

aight so maybe we chill out and wait 'till 'skate' will come into market.

I'm thinking that, ZTE won't publish sources before that. Buisness is buisness, no exceptions. they have their rules, business rules that they will obey

so maybe temporarily close topic? Me, I think that ZTE now knows that we really want those codes. Whining won't make any difference

[Guest will8578]

i agree with above, im a blade newbie, and as the phone is as it is, is awesome, i know someone has banged on about samsung releasing the codes and stuff, imagined if you owned a htc phone that couldnt be rooted, i was lucky enough to find an xtc clip to get my wildfire rooted, how s*** of htc was that, people got excited about upgrading, only to find out the phone was locked, it took alpharevx aprrox 7 months to get it unlocked, all that for a pretty poo phone, now fro £100 iv got this excellent phone, that with all the devs working their guts out to make roms perfect for us, so we enjoy our phones as they are and when things get released then we can enjoy them even more, again once all those devs we have got, get their rom magic making hands on the code, final thing, if your brave enough take a look on the blade forum on xda, its like a ghostown, no dev support, not much support, imagine if this forum was like it, we'd all be stuffed, so come on keep this great community going,

peace lol :huh: :) :blink:

[Guest appolus]

nice also waiting for the new kernel hopefully it will fix some bugs and overclocking :blink:

[Guest wbaw]

aight so maybe we chill out and wait 'till 'skate' will come into market.

I'm thinking that, ZTE won't publish sources before that. Buisness is buisness, no exceptions. they have their rules, business rules that they will obey

so maybe temporarily close topic? Me, I think that ZTE now knows that we really want those codes. Whining won't make any difference

The Linux kernel also has rules ...

Remember the license requires you make source available to your customers with the product or to include a written offer. Putting a zip of the relevant sources on the Documentation CD is a great way to do this.

If you include GPL software, include a copy of the GPL with your license documentation and make sure it is clear that your product contains GPL software.

If you make available software/firmware updates via Internet, and the update or software/firmware image contains GPL software, you have to provide the corresponding source code for every single version.

This is not legal advice, if you have doubts consult your legal counsel.

http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html

Edited July 10, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest q123456]

The Linux kernel also has rules ...

I know, (in fact, i'm using linux as my primary OS), but really we don't have any means to make ZTE to publish sources codes earlier

They don't care as long as they know that nobody will try to sue them.

Me i also will be more than happy when they publish those codes, but writing more here in this topic is pointless, won't make any difference. Well, that's of course only my opinion

[Guest KonstaT]

January code

June code

Neither of these source codes is available for download from the ZTE website. I've been trying over few days and all I get is 404 error (in chinese).

[Guest Drirr]

January code

June code

Neither of these source codes is available for download from the ZTE website. I've been trying over few days and all I get is 404 error (in chinese).

I had the same problem, it seems like whatever servers they are using they're only responding at certain times. Miss the window and get one of two different 404 messages (in chinese).

[Guest wbaw]

/system/bin/busybox

That file also violates GPL without distributing source code for it. There may be other GPL licensed components too.

http://www.busybox.net/

Edited August 2, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest wbaw]

I know, (in fact, i'm using linux as my primary OS), but really we don't have any means to make ZTE to publish sources codes earlier

They don't care as long as they know that nobody will try to sue them.

Me i also will be more than happy when they publish those codes, but writing more here in this topic is pointless, won't make any difference. Well, that's of course only my opinion

There is no guarantee that nobody will sue them. Any of the (many) copyright owners of the Linux kernel would be within their rights to sue, a lot of those aren't lacking the means, the motive or the legal right to sue, several of them are direct competitors to ZTE. The copyright owners of Busybox could sue too.

Other companies have been successfully sued for similar GPL violations, it's really only a matter of time.

Edited August 2, 2011 by wbaw