Source codes

[Guest t0mm13b]

"Crossbowmen, hold fire".

What the hell does that mean?

Joking or not, and judging by your nick 'deepmenace' and posting a message that underlines a kind of intimidating tone...

BTW am not apologizing for being blunt but it needs to be said!

Edited September 1, 2011 by t0mm13b

[Guest targetbsp]

C'mon! that was clearly a joke lol. Google what a parapet is before starting an argument where there isn't one. :)

[Guest deepmenace]

What the hell does that mean?

Joking or not, and judging by your nick 'deepmenace' and posting a message that underlines a kind of intimidating tone...

BTW am not apologizing for being blunt but it needs to be said!

oh dear...

[Guest deepmenace]

C'mon! that was clearly a joke lol. Google what a parapet is before starting an argument where there isn't one. :)

thanks dude. lol.

at least his response provided me with a genuine laugh while sitting here, bored at work.

[Guest Simon O]

<In a Michael Winner voice> t0mm13b, Calm down dear ;)

[Guest t0mm13b]

<In a Michael Winner voice> t0mm13b, Calm down dear ;)

Ho okie ....

/me lies down in dark room

[Guest wbaw]

Comparing GPL violation with software piracy is incredibly dumb. If ZTE distributed copyrighted code on the device without permission from the authors then this is piracy.. and they haven't done that. What ZTE have done so far is distribute a device containing open source code covered by several licenses which they are legally free to do. The only thing ZTE have done wrong so far is not release the modified kernel code which they should do under the terms of the GPL. Not releasing this is a GPL violation.. nothing more, nothing less.

The only part of the ROM that ZTE need to release code for is the kernel. Everything else doesn't require them to share anything. So really.. stop telling people that GPL violation is software piracy.

The Linux kernel is copyrighted code. Hundreds of different people & organisations have copyright on some code in the Linux kernel. They would need the permission of all of them to redistribute the Linux kernel, except under the terms of the GPLv2 license.

So it's exactly the same as software piracy, whatever you want to call it. It's copyright infringement. It's incredibly dumb to try to deny it. The GPL is a copyright license, I suggest you read it, particularly section 3 & section 4 - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Edited September 1, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest LorianNod]

Hi - just wanted to poke my head above the parapet and let you know that I am chasing for an udate!

Thanks, we look forward to the update, because it's a bit like waking up on Christmas day and finding nothing under the tree.

[Guest wbaw]

The following link is a good analysis of the situation that most Android OEMs could be facing soon ... due to section 4 of GPLv2 having a very harsh penalty for non compliance & the Linux kernel having so many copyright holders, many of whom can't be easily contacted, it's all a real mess. As he puts it, they could be shut down, or shaken down for large amounts of cash by anybody that holds any copyright on the Android kernel. It's a serious issue for ZTE, other Android OEMs that violate the GPL & anybody that sells their phones.

The short version is that

rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;

this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without which Android can't run; and

as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html

Edited September 1, 2011 by wbaw

[Guest rafalo1333]

Where can I search for source code?

Where will it be released? Can someone give link, etc.

[Guest Phoenix Silver]

Where can I search for source code?

Where will it be released? Can someone give link, etc.

You can check here :

Zte Bulletin

[Guest brickornot]

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/china/beijing/time/

You can check here :

Zte Bulletin

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/china/beijing/time/

Local Time = GMT + 8:00 (Standard Time)Friday, 2 September

3:27:59 a.m(GMT + 8:00)Switch to 24 hour display

[Guest C3P001]

So still nothing September 1st came and went and fact is gingerbread is released for skate which is on sale and no source code has been made available ....on or before 1st september was what we were told well its now 2nd September and where is it ?

[Guest nrev]

It isn't clear to me what the time limits are for distributing source code. Section 3 of GPLv2 states that the source code (or offer of providing it on a non-profit basis) must accompany the object code/executable. Which seems to indicate that either the code (clause 3a) or the offer of non-profit access (clause 3b) should be distributed with the phone itself (or software update). If ZTE are opting for 3b, though, what defines when the source should be provided? Should it be within a day or two, or within months, years or decades? There must be case history that helps with this. I'm not an expert - does anyone have the data to hand? I'm also a bit confused about the deadline of 1st September in this particular case - was that date simply the one promised by ZTE's representative ZTE_SeanJacko in his post here or is there some hard deadline imposed by law?

[Guest hedgepigdaniel]

It isn't clear to me what the time limits are for distributing source code. Section 3 of GPLv2 states that the source code (or offer of providing it on a non-profit basis) must accompany the object code/executable. Which seems to indicate that either the code (clause 3a) or the offer of non-profit access (clause 3b) should be distributed with the phone itself (or software update). If ZTE are opting for 3b, though, what defines when the source should be provided? Should it be within a day or two, or within months, years or decades? There must be case history that helps with this. I'm not an expert - does anyone have the data to hand? I'm also a bit confused about the deadline of 1st September in this particular case - was that date simply the one promised by ZTE's representative ZTE_SeanJacko in his post here or is there some hard deadline imposed by law?

The Sep 1st date was just an estimate given by SeanJacko. I don't know any case history, but the spirit of the GPL is clearly that the source is available when the software is available.

[Guest brickornot]

IT IS ON

http://support.zte.c...?newsId=1001222

Zte Skate source code

http://uploading.com/files/b9mab5a5/ZTE_Skate_SourceCode.zip/

http://www.mediafire.com/?7rkt5i1yy9aqvvq

Edited September 2, 2011 by brickornot

[Guest Phoenix Silver]

Kernel source mirrored here :

kernel 35 source

Edited September 2, 2011 by Phoenix Silver

[Guest iNoobz2Droid]

wow i did not expected it :o

custom rom makers start your engines to continue the awesome work ;)

i think we see some benefit of the source in maybe 1-2weeks

[Guest Phoenix Silver]

As usual Zte code is very uncomplete and borked :)

Some work to do before it boot

[Guest t0mm13b]

As usual Zte code is very uncomplete and borked :)

Some work to do before it boot

Yup! That code is a fine mess !!!! :D

[Guest The Soup Thief]

Can anyone give me an idiot's explanation as to why this happens?

How do they end up being able to generate a working kernel when what they understand to be their "last good save" is such a dog's dinner?

One should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, so let's assume it's not about deliberate obfuscation, but from what Phoenix_Silver and t0mm13b are saying, this one is royally incomplete, as have been the previous ZTE source releases (Blade Eclair and Froyo). Is it just poor maintainence of the code? Is code compiled, found not to work, hacked, compiled, etc until it works, without these changes being adopted back into the official Source Code for release?

With my very unsophisticated guess at how it works, I'm assuming it would be no more difficult to release the actual final source than it would to release this (I'm guessing) early draft

Anyone?

Is this general practice in the industry? When code is released for other devices is it usually non-functional?

[Guest hedgepigdaniel]

One should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

haha wise words

[Guest t0mm13b]

Can anyone give me an idiot's explanation as to why this happens?

How do they end up being able to generate a working kernel when what they understand to be their "last good save" is such a dog's dinner?

One should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, so let's assume it's not about deliberate obfuscation, but from what Phoenix_Silver and t0mm13b are saying, this one is royally incomplete, as have been the previous ZTE source releases (Blade Eclair and Froyo). Is it just poor maintainence of the code? Is code compiled, found not to work, hacked, compiled, etc until it works, without these changes being adopted back into the official Source Code for release?

With my very unsophisticated guess at how it works, I'm assuming it would be no more difficult to release the actual final source than it would to release this (I'm guessing) early draft

Anyone?

Is this general practice in the industry? When code is released for other devices is it usually non-functional?

To be honest...

Its one bucket of slop!

What I could not understand is this - and from prior experience with this, take a look at the HTC kernel versions, you will see how pleasantly structured it is - in a logical manner such as board-xxxx_usb.c, board-xxxx_keys.c, board-xxxx_display.c etc... all neatly into their own individual files.

Talk about Q&A which is very poor and absymal in the Software side of things...

The code that ZTE mutilates is from a forked version of CodeAurora's source, combined with terribly kludgey hacks to get working... they still have not dealt with the USB subsystem code in there...

ZTE, well.. let's just say, it was rushed out the door and deliberately broken so not to work on the blade - why?

I do not know especially with the furore earlier on this summer with a leaked build... so it makes me wonder just what the hell are they at... why release a leaked build earlier on, yet now, release the source that deliberately breaks for the Blade - Is it that they are stopping support on the Blade and kill it off... and instead focus on the Skate... a lot of questions like that pop into my mind...

My 2cents...

Edited September 2, 2011 by t0mm13b

[Guest Phoenix Silver]

it even doesn't compile as it for the skate lol

[Guest The Soup Thief]

Do you reckon there's any point in someone having a bit of a diplomatic chat with ZTE_SeanJacko to see if he can get the point accross to the developers? I guess it's all been tried previously, but they company just don't seem to get it