yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Acer Iconia A500] jm77:
I'm not sure where the confusion lies -- a kernel without source is a violation of the GPLv2.

When you are given the source to a kernel, and you distribute a binary form of it, you are required to pass the modifications along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_and_conditions

The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. The second section of version 2 and the fifth section of version 3 also require giving "all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program". Version 3 of the license allows making the source code available in additional ways in fulfillment of the seventh section. These include downloading source code from an adjacent network server or by peer-to-peer transmission, provided that is how the compiled code was available and there are "clear directions" on where to find the source code.

Full document here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Even Acer is required to post kernel source:

http://support.acer.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=1&modelId=3851

Not posting source is a violation of the GPL and is stealing other's work. No two ways about it.

I can't think of any good reason not to distribute the source to a kernel that you added a few patches to. /sigh
[Acer Iconia A500] jm77:
Unless an organization or kernel developer decides to drop a cease & desist on said author, gpl-violations.org gets involved and/or Acer's legal team decides to get ugly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court

http://gpl-violations.org/
[Acer Iconia A500] jm77:
1. The Thor kernel contains altered source code lines and functions.

2. The source code of the Thor kernel is NOT accessible in any way.

3. As far as I am aware, the source code of the Thor kernel is NOT provided directly after requesting it from the developer.

4. You can NOT obtain the source code.

It will function if installed on an appropriate Acer A500 operating system, but there is no way to know what modifications have been made to it.

See links in my previous posts for more information on how this is a violation of the GPL.

This is the reason why linking to it from these forums is not permitted.

More here:

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1159293
[Acer Iconia A500] kjy2010:
Not sure what's going on in Thor's head, nor why he refuses to comply.

He will be missed though, as he's one of the best DEVs we had for the Iconia :(
[Acer Iconia A500] FloatingFatMan:
If he cared in the slightest, he'd release his code; unless it's doing something it shouldn't.
[Acer Iconia A500] Lontro:
Now I know enough not to use the Kernel at all.

I did not want to bother this forum with my discussion. Thanx alot.
[Acer Iconia A500] zoubidou:
i know that thor's kernel is krippeld anyhow, there are basic functions in the acer kernel which he has removed, especially the data encryption necessary to make exchange (enterprise) push work with the a500, it will not work without that.

it might be due to the usage of ramdisk, but i am not sure about that.

anyhow as long as he does not implement every function of the original kernel, i will not use his, with or without the availability of the source.

there is a kernel from richardtrip in this forum which works very well has o/c and some other features and has a full implementation of all the original acer functions.

so i really have no need of using thor's kernel, even if he is the best developper in the world.

have fun everybody.
[Acer Iconia A500] edgie168:
He's been saying that m-deejay (the virtuous roms chef) is a thief and liar, hence no (more) source for anyone. this presumably means that he's shared the source before, but not anymore.
[Acer Iconia A500] mdeejay:
wtf? im thief & liar? :D

haha :D

I do not need nothing from his ****ty "source"
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
That isn't really constructive. Please try to stay civil.
[Acer Iconia A500] skiddhard:
I don't think he means it in a demeaning way. Although, the words used are "harsh". ;)

Fact of the matter is (with no intention of starting a fire fight), Thor's refusal to release the source code could be construed in a different way. If he is accusing someone of "stealing" his code (which should be in the public domain in any case), that's just wrong. Is there something in his code that he doesn't want others to find out? Is there a piece of software that transmits some information back to him? These are the kinda questions which arise due to his refusal to share his source. At least to a common user like myself, they did arise when I read about his refusal and the subsequent closure of his thread.

Without getting into the specifics of the GPL, source codes are released with the intention of letting other users make changes (mostly good changes). That particular act cannot be deemed "stealing". At most, I would stretch myself and call it "borrowing" :D

Granted, Thor is a great Dev. That said, this fora has some rules, and if he is not following them, the Mod's actions are justified. Also, m-deejay has produced some of the best ROM's for us A500 users. Lets not take the credit due to him. :)

Again, this is not to start a fire fight, or any fight for that matter. Peace.
[Acer Iconia A500] edgie168:
*shrug* I remember you two fighting over that before the posts/thread got deleted.

I honestly could care less about you two fighting, but i will admit to being amused by it. Makes the work days a little less trying.
[Acer Iconia A500] zoubidou:
i also consider using thor's kernel is dangerous as long as he does not publish his sources. nobody knows what he is doing inside, he can send privacy data to a site, or passwords, or filled out form's with the navigator, etc..

as long as he is not re-considering his position, i will totally refrain from even going to his site, you never know what he is doing in his site.
[Acer Iconia A500] blazingwolf:
This place never ceases to amaze me. Let the stupidity continue.
[Acer Iconia A500] Irieone:
hahahahahaha +1
[Acer Iconia A500] jetsetwilly:
One thing's for sure, since all this kicked off, there seems to be a lot less development and updates going on.
[Acer Iconia A500] :
With Dexter, and Thor gone, we've lost two good DEVs. They were both pretty much work horses! :(
[Acer Iconia A500] edgie168:
But at least we've still got 4 different roms coming from the same source... ;)
[Acer Iconia A500] edgie168:
Did you uninstall the clockworkmod for the Iconia, then?
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
To be fair, his clockwork doesn't make any network connections. But yes, your point still stands.
[Acer Iconia A500] CarpeNoctem:
... with this kind of comments all good dev will one after another desert the forum. If you don't like someone work don't use it but certainly not spit on it.

Then about the GPL a shame some people don't respect it but I can understand: when someone use your work without giving credit it is very frustrating and I know what I am talking about, and I believe one of the rule of this forum should be "credit mandatory" but then it is just a personal opinion. The open source is sometimes "unfair "
[Acer Iconia A500] drkalo:
Yeah, you're right this is mega-conspiracy, first thor gave us CWM and then released a kernel that can steal credit cards, bank accounts and may be he can watch you from the front camera and laugh at this lunacy :D
[Acer Iconia A500] zoubidou:
1. i don't say he is doing anything wrong, i just protect myself (and especially my investment) as long as i don't know what he is doing.

2. I need all functions of 3.1 including data encryption, which he does not support, and that is the most important point.

3. I don't really need cwm i can use stock recovery with update.zip, however recovery is not active, whilest the tablet is powered, and when you are in cwm it has no network connection, thus the risk is reduced.
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
Always have a good laugh reading this forum... keep it up :D

PS: Nostalgically thinking how much its fallen since the WM days...
[Acer Iconia A500] FloatingFatMan:
Honestly though, Thor.. Do you appreciate why people might think this stuff when you refuse to comply with the GPL? I think you're a damned good developer and without you and sc2k we wouldn't be half as far along with the Iconia as we are, so why decide to break the GPL?

I'm genuinely curious. If it's because some people have used your work and not given credit, then expose them for that; but refusing to comply with the GPL just lands yourself in potential trouble and casts doubts on your work.
[Acer Iconia A500] netham45:
As far as I can tell, both sides are being stubborn.

@Thor, release your damn kernel source, or at least tell us why you won't.

@Everyone else, he's doing his work for free, you have no position to act like he owes you -ANYTHING-.

This is all pathetic, and getting in the way of actual progress. Perhaps we can stop acting like children and start sharing and tolerating others' points of view? I'd expect this in a kindergarten, "NO THE SOURCE IS MINE U CAN NO HAS!" "YOU MADED IT, YOU OWE IT TO US! GIMME!"

The ideas that he's sending data back at a kernel-level, given the complexity of the overlying Android system, are extremely far-fetched (but a reasonable concern to have). Possible, yes, but the time and work it'd take to develop something like that that only a small group of people would use makes it highly improbable. A far better route would be some sort of system-level exploit that took advantage of the various root options to install malware (inb4 'kernel can do that hurr durr').

tl;dr - You're all being babies. Get along or shut up.
[Acer Iconia A500] msoler8785:
The GPL isn't just a license its an idea that a community of people can make something greater then sum of the individual parts could have. Without licenses like the GPL, and the compliance of it from devs all around the world, linux wouldn't exist and neither would android. That is why it is imperative for everyone to comply. Not just those that choose to do so.
[Acer Iconia A500] The Odom Project:
@Thor: love your work man, still using CWM obviously, and still check your site.

@M-Deejay: same for your work.

Both of you: any solution? Please? I understand the delema of the GPL and not wanting your work stolen, and I get that some people on here seem very unappreciative, but just check your old threads: its littered with post after post of bugs and such, people risking their own devices to test your work. There's gotta be some middle ground here!

Everyone else: Thor and M-Deejay are releasing their work for FREE! And for people saying that Thor's kernel could be giving out credit cards and such, that's ridiculous! It would be more believable to say that Vache or another developer is releasing a rom that would release that kind of information, but a kernel??? (And I'm not seriously suggesting that these Rome are gonna hack anyone)
[Acer Iconia A500] skiddhard:
I don't believe any one has made such a definitive statement that his kernel, in fact, does "steal" data. But that really is what comes to mind when you realize that he refuses to release his source. At least to a a lay man like me it does. It might even be a "ridiculous" suggestion but its a genuine concern nonetheless. That said, XDA as a community has rules to safeguard the interests of all its members. The rules are in black and white. And regardless, if Thor vehemently denies any wrong doing, he might as well release the source. And everyone who uses his source should give credit to Thor where it is due. That really is the crux of an open source platform and by extension, the GPL. Again, that my (a lay man's) understanding of this all. Not the GPL or open source per se, but more like "my interpretation of it".

In the end, it is the community, that doesn't get quality software to use unlike, in this case, what Acer has dumped on us.

And to support what you said, these guys really need to bury their differences and work as a unit. It's not like the kernel belongs to just one fellow.

My 2 cents.
[Acer Iconia A500] jm77:
There's a proper place to report GPL violations.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
[Acer Iconia A500] blazingwolf:
I agree completely.
[Acer Iconia A500] skiddhard:
Well, some people will laugh off such discussions/comments, others will participate. That really is the purpose and the nature of forums. :)

Although, most people will hope that those who laugh don't miss the underlying concerns that the other people engaging in discussions are voicing. They are reasonable and pretty real. ;)
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
At the end of the day, someone like Richard trip is trying to make the iconia better for everyone by building a solid kernel, and releasing his source so others building kernels can improve too. Some others are trying to make the iconia better only for those who use their kernel by not releasing source to help other kernel makers. There's a big difference - one is working for a community, the other for themself.

Edit to remove a name so I'm not directly criticising anyone.
[Acer Iconia A500] dongimin2:
Different Perspective

There is a thread about this on reddit.

HERE.

For ppl who have no quality internet:

XDA kids in this particular forum need to grow a perspective. My phone forum is fine though.

TL;DR : If the source is open source, you can't get mad at people using your source. If you don't want them to use it, make it closed source. If you can't make it closed source (GNU sources for example), deal with it, don't dev or make it open source.
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
Yes. This. Exactly this. It's good practice to attribute credit, but that quote is a pretty good summary.
[Acer Iconia A500] zoubidou:
how growse, unbelievable to read something like this.

first of all only the Kernel is under GPL license because it is a LINUX fork (as some would say).

Concerning the ROM's they full of scripts, binaries, java etc. each of them may belong to a different licence, but basically they a proprietary.

ROM makers usually take those appart look it up and re-use, or change or make new once, especially the scripts and java. Basically they have to keep the binaries in order to keep the most basic functions available. This might be legal or not, i don't know, but somehow the makers of the original rom's don't care about inforcing any legal aspects, otherwise XDA would not exist, in fact they are possibly whatching if something good is coming out of those so called custom rom's and even may copy things without giving any notice.

So i know that a Kernel maker is supposed to publish his source to be GPL compliant, a rom maker does not have the same obligation, except if it is stated in the script or java files, except if he rewrites a Kernel from scratch without reusing any of the original source code, in which case he can attach his own licence, but i think except for cyanogen (on galaxys) which had a completely rewritten kernel, this is not the case with any if these kernels.

In fact if I would ba a moderator, i would knock somebody out, if he is using such an insulting language.
[Acer Iconia A500] dongimin2:
Deal with it, Linus intended devs to get involved by making the source a rather draconian attribute of 'infecting' its forks with the license.

Quote from Wikipedia about GPL

As a final touch,

EDIT: oh, and also, my post was a quote from reddit. Same side as me, but I am less extreme, because I am not a dev, so I think I should be humble when criticizing devs.
[Acer Iconia A500] originalone:
is this not for reporting companies? should developers that try to make addon be reported too

it looks foolish if people wasted time on reported people working in their free time to improve what company fails to do correct, rite?

is it the user doing so or acting on it, or is it developer that try to do better.

i am new on a501, but i see many new posts of what is called porting, is that not breaking laws and more like wrong comparing to a source not release.

the thrive rom with kernel source not out, and its firmware with copyrighted app installed and like other companies that license to use application.

forum seem to allow gpl breaking and software distribution as long, it is bundled by a company? so i distribute new tegra2 games on this board as long as i include it in a rom from a big company? really nice solution..

its nice that we can have licensed material distributed to our acer tablets without paying when toshiba, motorola and samsung pays to have it on their releases. a new way of getting freewarez?

this sound like a fun place to be. and really many good roms from other companies here..

i think no user would cares about source or other licenses from other tablets here.. any user will download a new rom, if its better, and not care if content is copyrighted for other. so its all just talk, no real user would do so and follow. in other xda sections i noted its not a problem, so why here?
[Acer Iconia A500] msoler8785:
I do not understand why this is so confusing to people. If you make changes to kernel source code you are required to share the source code of your changes. If you do not you are breaking the law and the rules of the forum.
[Acer Iconia A500] originalone:
again, the end user dont care? so why frack with developers and kill good development. get companies to be more open, but let developer alone.

fracking unfair.

if all comes down to what is down in the forum, it not rules of this forum, if you look close, you find "free"warez in roms posted and no one gives a frack about it?

rulez or no rulez, users here want update, and better functions..

if forum was legal, no port was posted on this forum due to legal issue. but fracking who cares..
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
all I can say.... http://www.esportbike.com/UBBimages/463065-RETARD.JPG
[Acer Iconia A500] :
That is a non-issue, as if you have two brain cells to rub together you can inject basically whatever apps you choose into any given ROM prior to install. I know personally I'll look and see what the DEV has included in his ROM, and if there are apps that I don't see included, I'll inject them in prior to install. That is NOT the issue at hand here, and once again someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the issue at hand is DEVs not being forthright in making their kernels available to others, since it's "supposedly" open source?

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm still in the learning process as are we all. ;)
[Acer Iconia A500] :
lol that one has been around for awhile, and it's still true today! ;)
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
yes but kids thease days dont know :)
[Acer Iconia A500] originalone:
so you mean, you care less about apps included, as you can remove or add. is not what xda moderators are making choices for too? and deleting as need?

forum should allow gpl roms and kernel compile, if they allow roms with company copyrighted material? or is this only to stop developer from posting on this board, so rules only apply to private developers.

then kernels not with a gpl source posted should matter, if its privately posted, but from companies it is ok, since they are above developers in this forum?

and apps posted by users are not ok, but from developers when they include in bundled roms?

i see no logic and users fighting about fracking nothing at all then.. just developers being annoying and users not being able to understand what it is about, as they can do exactly the same on other forums, but not here..

hopefully not about developers not posting sources? probably true, but then you are fracking way off topic, we need to make it work for all users and keep developers?

although we dont like developers and people breaking some rules, we like using their development?

Like you posted clockworkmod, i like it, but should i avoid because of your comments or attitude, i fracking think not, who cares.
[Acer Iconia A500] mburke178:
why is this still an issue. Who gives a rats ass about GPL as a user? Thor's kernel is what it is. It may not be on XDA, but that doesn't mean it isn't superb. There are alot of dev sites on the internet do some googling, aka thor kernel, and find the kernel if you want it. If you don't want to use it, use one that somebody supplies the source with it.

Unless lawyers show up serving papers to thor or something i don't think the situation will change. whether it's right or wrong is pointless to argue, the rules are the rules.
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
But why should Thor be able to take improvements from others kernels without giving anything back?
[Acer Iconia A500] mburke178:
Thor has given A **** TON towards the iconia development. More so then any of the GPL police on XDA have given. if you don't like what Thor is doing don't use his kernel simple as that.
[Acer Iconia A500] birkoffsjunk:
Lots of people seem to be confusing Opinion with Fact, and Fact with Opinion...

I'll attempt to clear up some of this "confusion", factually:

Is the Kernel 'Open Source'?

Yes, licensed under GNU General Public License v2.

What does this mean?

In the GPL license you have the four freedoms: to run the software, to have the source code, to distribute the software, to distribute your modifications to the software.

What this implies is that when you obtain the software, you have the *obligation* to ensure that these four things hold true for the next person you give it to. After all, someone had to go to the trouble of preserving these rights for *you*, so you have to do the same for the next guy. source

In a nutshell GPL requires you to pass it forward.

If I make a modification do I need to release the source?

Are you distributing the modification? If so, then Yes you are required to under the GPL license.

What if I keep my modification private?

As long as you aren't distributing it then you need not worry about releasing the source.

Has developer 'X' had requests to release the source?

Yes, multiple

What does this mean for developer 'X'?

They can either stop distributing binaries or release the code. Failure to do either is a violation of the GPL license.

If he doesn't, is that theft?

No, it's copyright infringement.
[Acer Iconia A500] vache:
I do not know if I should laugh or cry...

P.S : Come on, restore your sig with current GPL violation. You have to assume now.
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
now let me tell you something .... my work is private and site too so according to gpl I don't have to release nothing...
[Acer Iconia A500] FloatingFatMan:
Sorry, but you're wrong there. Your site is available online, therefore it's not private, and your ROM is available to download from your site, making it distributed.

Legally, you have no choice, you HAVE to release the source or be in breach of the GPL.
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
good luck finding something hosted on the site...
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
OK, you host on mediafire. So the sentence becomes:

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Your site is available online providing links, therefore it's not private, and your ROM is available to download, making it distributed.
[Acer Iconia A500] af974:
As far as i like this thread, unfortunately i have to move it on General because there is nothing related to development here.

Anyway, don't deal with GPL, rules and laws are simply clear. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-11-29-lawsuits
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
I'm done having fun... back to serious stuff....

Have fun talking here....
[Acer Iconia A500] themono:
Thor's right, this is kind of a waste of time. He's already said that he doesn't care about all the people who put work into building the linux kernel, and thinks he can steal their work and not comply with their terms. I doubt we'll change his mind.
[Acer Iconia A500] :
Let's hope you need nothing more from him. CWM comes to mind. :rolleyes:
[Acer Iconia A500] thor2002ro:
cwm is under apache license.... :P