yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HTC EVO 3D] rrjskj:
Couldn't have said it better myself that's where I was sorta heading but thank you
[HTC EVO 3D] pstevep:
I agree with some of his points yes.

Proprietary things can be released in stock roms, due to them being stock. GPL has to be enforced when you make modifications. That's why no developers have to release source for a stock kernel. Busybox was created by a dev on XDA, unless someone is altering his source, they can refer back to him.

It would be a benefit but also not. We try and work with the Developers, we can't force them to work with us. But we still have to abide by the gpl for the linux kernel. Believe me attempts were made to work with other developers, as I am attempting to talk to dodava about this misunderstanding. I have a 3D as well, I want to preserve our community. I can only do so much however.
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
I didn't mean that the mods pulled this out of thin air. From the outside looking in it appears to be one of two things.

Either

A) only certain devs are getting reported for GPL even if they are compliant

B) only certain reports are getting followed up on.

EDIT: Maybe some sort of punishment for people who continually file false reports over and over on the same dev should be in order. Or is that already the case?
[HTC EVO 3D] karate134:
I think that's why everyone is like this, everyone has no clue of whatever the full story is. All we've had until very recently is little hints hear and there. So I think it just seems as if only certain devs are getting "attacked".
[HTC EVO 3D] pstevep:
All reports get followed up on. Not all devs get reported. Dodava had never been reported, he was by an angry user. I personally have checked dodavas stuff in case this would happen, because I feared it might. He was in the clear.
[HTC EVO 3D] dodava:
Selective enforcement doesn't have to mean malicious selective enforcement. Although I do think a good amount of this does happen here. Whether it was the case this time or not.

Whether it is malicious or not it has the same detrimental effect to the faith of the XDA community. Decisions appear random and ultimately some people are going to get dealt with extremely unfairly whether that is the intent or not. XDA just doesn't have the resources to do the enforcement they seem to want to do. Those charged with policing are put in a tough spot. Copyleft licenses, copyright, and software licensing are very complicated issues and expecting xda moderators to play police regarding them is ultimately unfair to the moderators and is bound to leave the community and moderators frustrated.

The xda community would be better off if xda didn't attempt policing but xda is a business dependent on advertising dollars to support it, so this will never happen. This fundamentally puts it in a position where what is good for xda isn't necessarily what is best for their community.

I mean that in the least offensive way possible. I feel for the XDA's owners. They are in a tough spot. XDA is fundamentally based upon activity which is a violation of intellectual property of those paying their bills. They have to balance this carefully. Phone vendors and carriers are willing to live with the violations happening here as long as they are what are considered minor and worth the extra dollars created for them by having this platform available to push their products or increase the which is pushing their phones for them. What the line for this is unclear and ever changing. The vendors and carriers aren't sure what is is from day to day, so XDA can't be. It is a tough position for a business to be in.

Ultimately this leaves XDA as perhaps no longer the best spot for the community they are targeting.

Well this has all been way off topic and ultimately will not change how XDA is operating because changing means the end of their business.

Peace out XDA.
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
Is there some sort of rule in place to punish someone who falsely accuses a dev on purpose?
[HTC EVO 3D] pstevep:
sorry to quote you twice, but yes they can be punished for these actions.

Most developers don't broadcast when they have been asked for source. Because it's not as big a deal as it has been made to seem. If you are following the gpl you just provide source and move on. No worries. Dodava felt like he was being targeted by xda, which was not the case.
[HTC EVO 3D] Kidromulous:
Just wish xda had a more concise even even handed policy. guess there is always rootzwiki
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
Thank you, that is very good to know. Maybe someone who has done this should be tared and feathered in public so people will realize they should report responsibly.

I think a majority of the mods on this site try to act as fairly as they can, I do think that a few let personal feelings and friendships effect there moderating. I know they are human just like the rest of us, but they do hold a lot of power. I also think that there is absolutely no way that there are enough mods on this site to properly check every report that is filled, mods have lives outside of xda and they aren't paid for their work here.
[HTC EVO 3D] pstevep:
I do agree, it puts us all in a horrible position, and makes most of the people on here end up hating people like me who have to look into these situations. A lot mods do not know gpl, but that's why we have a group of guys that do and look into it.

XDA is trying to do the right thing by staying up with the gpl, as other sites will as well. When you have 4 million registered users it is hard to see everything. I spend most of my time here cleaning up crap instead of having intellectual conversations like this.

I am trying to help make things better, but it takes help from everyone.
[HTC EVO 3D] dimebagdan65:
The solution is simple. When XDA closes or investigates a thread, the FULL details of the closure should be disclosed immediately by the mod who closed it, Including but not limited to the name of the person who originated the complaint and the nature of the complaint. When you shine the light on everything, there's no dark corners for anyone to hide... Just my two cents, I have been and always will be an avid XDA member, I love the availability of information and ideas here on this site.
[HTC EVO 3D] pstevep:
I would love to. Believe me. And I will bring up this again.
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
That sounds like a great idea, and then the ruling should be posted so that everyone can see either what exactly the problem was or why there was not a problem.
[HTC EVO 3D] troyboytn:
pstevepOn, a side note, I would like to thank you personally for standing up against Hacre on the GPL thread last night. He's come into the 3d forum (somewhere he has no business to start with)several times now insulting everyone in his path. While there were other mods in that discussion who didn't say a word about the crap he was throwing out, you did, and that's the way it should be. Props to you.
[HTC EVO 3D] the_scotsman:
You know where the door is.

I absolutely see no reason for us to publicly announce who has reported a specific thread or member. This never has and never will happen.

With regards to providing reasons why a thread has been closed, then in most instances, you guys are probably entitled to hear something, to help make things clear and prevent any confusion.

With regards to the OP crying aboout people not providing source for Busybox etc....what has that got to do with anything? If it's not modified, and someone requests the source, simply refer them back to the Busybox thread.

You know damn well that we're talking about MODIFIED components. The GPL is not rocket science.

And for the record, we DO NOT selectively ignore or action reports that come in. We do not also actively seek out GPL issues. We investigate and act on every single report we receive through our RP system. Nothing is ignored or swept under the rug.

There are no ulterior motives here. We receive a report, we act on it, simple.

I'd really love to know why people think we're being selective? What evidence is there to show this? I'm not trying to be a smart ass..I'm seriously interested to know why, so that we can resolve these confusions and allegations.
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
I didn't follow that thread, but I appreciate that pstevep has been willing to discuss the issues openly and not just close this thread because there is some dissension. I've seem him close threads when he has to because things get out of hand, and that is part of his job as a mod. He definitely seems to have a better understanding of the issues than some of the other mods.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] lyon21:
Here is the main question that I have about all the GPL stuff going on. If a developer includes a kernel in his ROM, doesn't he have to be able to provide a complete and compilable source for that kernel since he/she is the one distributing the kernel? If so, what about the people who include a stock, unmodified kernel from HTC? I don't know how many times I have seen kernel devs complaining about how HTC's kernel sources are incomplete. If the dev is the one distributing the kernel in their ROM and they are responsible for providing a complete, compilable kernel, that would make almost every single Sense ROM here in violation of GPL.

Now, please do not take this as arguing or trying to start anything and I am not hoping to get anybody's work in trouble here. I am asking a serious question because this is the way it seems to me and I would like to know if it is correct or not.
[HTC EVO 3D] Jon.StatiK:
I think it's where your E3D community is watching its kernel devs get scrapped on out in public. I personallyknow nothing about GPL and I don't plan on changing that but you guys need something different here. Our entire kernel community is now gone thanks to someone reporting a test kernel, could be wrong with that but that's how I caught it.
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
If a kernel is posted as a test kernel, is it required show source?
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
We as developers using a stock , unmodded kernel are not bound the gpl. If the questions are brought to us, we will refer you to HTC, as we have made no changes to their kernel
[HTC EVO 3D] karate134:
I think people think mods are selective because of the things that were suggested. In other words, people don't have the full picture, hence, they paint it with often faulty details.
[HTC EVO 3D] freeza:
Things have to be changed in order to boot HTCs kernel source =x
[HTC EVO 3D] shadowmike:
Any news on updates ?

Sent from my EVO One 3D using the XDA Premium App.
[HTC EVO 3D] lyon21:
delete
[HTC EVO 3D] the_scotsman:
LOL...read the OP...
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
I didn't say source. If I take an ruu for the evo 3d and build a custom rom...I don't touch (make any modifications) any part that is covered under the gpl
[HTC EVO 3D] minieod:
aha! welcome to law enforcement

no one likes you. even though you are doing the right thing

this whole situation going on is super strange, considering i am reading marvel's civil war as we type. its like captain america vs iron man in xda
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2011-July/000242.html

> 1. What is liability of organization B regarding the GPL source code when

> selling the product to organization C? Do organization B have to release the

> source code to organization C?

Organization B is legally obligated to provide the source code to

organization C.

> 2. What is liability of organization A, when organization B is selling such

> product to organization C?

Organization A has no liability as it is not selling to organization C at all.

Maybe I am reading that wrong? I know it says selling, but I believe that applies to giving away also?
[HTC EVO 3D] minieod:
to me this sounds like B is responsible for showing source because they are the ones selling / giving away / distributing .

A is not responsible (read: B cannot just say, "refer to A"), because, although A gave B the GPL source code, A is not selling / giving away / distributing to C - this is accomplished through B to C

as per discussion / points from Vinchenzop. A = HTC, B = Vinchenzop / ViperROMs, C = minieod / birddog_61 / etc
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
That's how I understood it also.
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
This is from GNU.org...just above the yellow box. Is discussing freedom(s)

*The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

*The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

Note the second freedom didn't contain the "access to the source code ..." Line
[HTC EVO 3D] minieod:
but then this is then governed by the GPL, correct? that is why the GPL exists?

GNU General Public License is what controls the legal freedoms of GNU?

am i getting this right?

otherwise, no one would ever be required to comply to any GPL or the like

the question comes into play : what is "adapt" and what is "access".... you certainly adapted it by integrating it into a piece of software (rom) that you have created for your needs. did you modify the code? maybe not. but it was adapted.

"Access" to the source code...is the ability to access and the intent to access and the action of access the same?

edit: not trying to stir pots, or point fingers - just trying to understand
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
Refer to this...

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1644784

"The gpl states that anyone who modifies a gpl licensed code is required to make available the sources used to compile it"

Redistributing isn't modifying.

Adapt would be make modifications to the specific code in question. But myself putting it in my Roms, would be adopting, not adapting the code.
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
Again just a question, but even though xda goes by this.

2.If you use GPL components, but do not make any modifications to them whatsoever, you should provide a link to the original source of your GPL code.

Isn't it still technically illegal according to the links provided?
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
How so? I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying is illegal?
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
Why XDA?

Sorry guys, but I'm gonna ask a dumb question.

I understand a little bit about open source and GPL, but is it really XDA's responsibility to make sure those license terms are enforced? Does github.com mediate disputes between developers that use their services? Does SourceForge? Who is ultimately responsible for making sure GPL license terms are enforced? Is XDA really responsible when they usually don't even host the ROM's and kernels involved?

It's an honest question, cuz I really don't know.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
Xda enforces the gpl to remove themselves of litigation of being a provider of non-compliant software (warez, stolen software/code).

If they allowed gpl violators to roam free, it doesn't bear well for the overall image of xda and what they, as well as android, stand for
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
Well when you use code from htc and then give it to us inside your rom even though you didn't change the code your still required to provide the source code.

That is what I took from the link I posted.

It seems that XDA says as long as you don't change the code then you don't have to.

Maybe I am confused by all the legal terminology.
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
From the way I understand it, even me (or viperboy, since he controls the op of viperRom) adding 'this is based on the 2.17 ruu' should be more than enough information to give anyone the knowledge of where we got our source/files from.
[HTC EVO 3D] liferef:
I agree with this. I'm new to posting but have been a reader for awhile and have seen pstevepOn as a very fair mod. That other thread was getting a little out of hand and the other mods were either ignoring or replying sarcastically to posters.

I'm still reading the different threads attempting to understand the whole situation so I don't really have an opinion yet.
[HTC EVO 3D] shadowmike:
Oh, damn..

It's the end of the world...

Good job ...

*throws stone at open source licensing laws*

Sent from my EVO One 3D using the XDA Premium App.
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
Unfortunately, reading the different threads will only cause more confusion. The situation that is being tip-toed around is being blown out of proportion by egos and, as much as I despise the word, fanboyism. Most particularly by people that think they know what has transpired, but in reality have a blind ignorance of the matter at hand
[HTC EVO 3D] birddog_61:
That is the way I feel also, however I am not sure that the law actually reads that way. I doubt there would ever be an actual problem, I just don't know if a judge would see it your and my way, or the way it seems to be worded in this.

http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2011-July/000241.html

http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2011-July/000242.html

Being that XDA would like to keep everything 100% gpl compliant, if they haven't already they might talk to a lawyer to clear this up.
[HTC EVO 3D] Newklearx3:
It's like a soap opera in here.

*gets popcorn*
[HTC EVO 3D] Vinchenzop:
From my understanding, this is about the most civil conversation in the last few hours. However, this isn't the place to discuss this. Remember, this is the development forum, and neither of our's thread. Apologies to the mod(s)
[HTC EVO 3D] dimebagdan65:
Open source style, bay-bee!
[HTC EVO 3D] Chainfire:
Actually we do have a ruleset for what we do or do not allow - though I can imagine it may not all seem so clear to the end-user. We do sometimes debate our rules and sometimes they do occasionally change. A lot of stuff on XDA is in the grey area, and what we do or don't allow is a fine line - but a line we believe to be just and practical. Don't agree? Feel free to invest the time to become a moderator and have your say in what is/isn't allowed here (or not, or lurk, or post without being bothered by it, or leave, or ...).

Contrary to what most seem to believe - and is posted time and again by those who leave - XDA is hardly run by the owners and/or those who get the money. Content wise, what is and isn't allowed is decided and enforced by the moderators and admins, who are all volunteers and see nothing of this ad money you speak of. As such, half of your post isn't really relevant.

May I suggest you post your kernels on mobilism in the future? From your post it seems like that is the kind of site you want XDA to be.

Thread closed (due to kernel no longer being posted/supported). Don't re-open it unless you are going to post/support your kernel here again (for other reasons to post, find or create a relevant thread).
[HTC EVO 3D] sdeft:
dodava I am also happy to test it on my gsm evo.

you may also consider adding Slide 2 Wake support too. I had problems with Ponury.

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1346760
[HTC EVO 3D] il Duce:
allegedly (pstevep told me on gtalk) the 0.4 kernel doesn't work with ponury. Just reporting, thanks dodova :)
[HTC EVO 3D] dodava:
It is working for me. I have run into issues with ponury when upgrading kernels. For some reason sometimes you need to remove and reinstall the ponury app.
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
Ponury Gesture Mod

It's working on 0.4 for me as well. I don't uninstall/reinstall when changing kernels, but I do clear the data for the app in "manage applications" and reconfigure it if the kernel I'm using supports it.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] il Duce:
ok sounds good, we'll try that thanks.
[HTC EVO 3D] sdeft:
Made a mistake above. I meant you may want to consider adding Sweep2Wake!.
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
Chad Goodman is having problems with his slide2(un)lock mod in the Anthrax kernels. It has been interfering with the touch screen driver and because the EVO 3D uses PowerButton+HomeKey to take a screenshot it's easy to trigger that instead of locking the screen when sliding right to left across the capacitive buttons to lock.

IMO Ponury Gesture Mod works just fine and as more mods get added to this kernel it's going to become less reliable and defeat its stated purpose.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] dodava:
I have no plans to add sweep2wake. I agree that Ponury works fine and if it can be done outside the kernel I would rather leave it there.

I have one more feature I am looking at adding to the kernel. I'm not going to mention what it is because there is a good chance it will never make it. Besides that I don't intend to add additional features to the kernel unless something new comes along and it has proven itself useful to a large number of users and stable.
[HTC EVO 3D] kittykat858:
most of the problems have been resolved for most users in the latest build. (except the screen shot issue, im working on a long term fix, but right now - a short term fix is to disable HTC screenshot

the difference between running this in the kernel vs an APK app such as PGM is the kernel version is attached to the screen drivers, and requires no additional memory, resources, or battery - were the APK needs to load into memory, and is a service that is always running. my kernel version is not a service, it is part of the touch drivers.

never really looked @ the PGM app, but i did see its APK on my process list when i ran it...
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
That all makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.

How do we disable the built-in screenshot feature? I've been looking for a mod for that and haven't found one yet.

The author of PGM claims that it is interrupt driven and doesn't do any polling so it's processor overhead and battery usage should be minimal, but your point about memory usage is certainly valid.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] kittykat858:
look for this in ur /system/build.prop -->

ro.htc.framework.screencapture

and change from

true to false
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
Disable Built-in HTC Screenshot (Power+Home)

That worked, and slide2(un)lock is much easier to use now. Thanks for the tip.

I'm testing your QC RLS5 now and it looks pretty good.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] Cynovae:
Since this is pretty close to stock, do you expect it would work with ZR3D version B?
[HTC EVO 3D] guitardoc64:
Ok, I'm in. I'll grab that one and try it too. I already got the version 2 and 3, haven't flashed either yet but uv was what I've been waiting on. Thanks, gracias, domo arigato!
[HTC EVO 3D] freeza:
Decided to flash 0.4. Will report back after 26h uptime :P
[HTC EVO 3D] xhazyx:
Most likely it will work... You can always just flash the stock kernel, in case this one doesn't boot, and you're data wont be affected
[HTC EVO 3D] dimebagdan65:
Beats is the only thing holding me back from jumping on this like a fat kid on a Christmas ham... I know by itself it's nothing spectacular but it makes a good base for further EQ tweaking. Basically, it's easier to polish a half polished turd than a fresh steaming pile (in terms of audio, not the kernel, the kernel rocks!). I wants my half polished turd! Lol
[HTC EVO 3D] mikeyxda:
After about 12 hours of testing, I decided to use dodava's kernel in MeanROM 4.0 as the new default kernel. I did my usual overnight testing last night and for the first time, found the testing difficult. Why? Because the dodava kernel only dropped 2% battery in 7.5 hours! First time I've seen that. Started at 72% and woke up to 70%. Seems to be quite the "sleeper" kernel we have here, and seems so far to be as stable as stock too! Benchmarks run nearly identical between Ziggy, Anthrax, and Dodava so it's performs well too.

I agree that adding Beats or just adding higher quality (higher bit rate/depth) drivers would catapult dodava into the stratosphere!

Kinda surprised this thread hasn't BLOWN UP!

Mike
[HTC EVO 3D] ch1naski:
ah yes, the freeza 26 hour reboot test.:D

Quadrants are for sissies.
[HTC EVO 3D] guitardoc64:
Trying out .4 on CleanROM reborn. So far, excellent. Will do the Freeza 26 and report.
[HTC EVO 3D] dodava:
If it passes can i promote it as Freeza certified? ;)
[HTC EVO 3D] freeza:
Of course :)
[HTC EVO 3D] jeffsanace:
Must agree with mikey, been running this since first post and it is as stable as I've tried. The battery life is indeed awesome! This thread will self destruct in T minus 10,9.8......... Nice work and I thank you.

Recognized " Bad Seed "