yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Update:

"Kathleen,

Thanks for the reply, there is no contact information for the HTC developer team for android that i can find. So i default back to my initial instructions from the HTC android EULA which is contacting email support. It would bee appreciated if you could give me the HTC Development team contact info or give me some better direction. The only direction i have so far is contacting you (HTC email support) as per the Android legal agreement that HTC ships with the device.

Thank you,

Mr. X"

Reply:

"Dear Mr. X,

Thank you for your response. You can go to developer.htc.com and click on the forums at the bottom of the page, but this is the best option we have. There is no phone number or email address that we can give you. Since this is simply Technical Support we do not have the information that you need. You can try the forums and hope to get a response from that. I apologize that I am not much help.

Sincerely,

Kathleen

HTC"

What a ****ing joke.... wow, i know if i offered this bull**** run around on my business, id be out of business.
[Desire General] abc27:
List of emails in the post above you. Escalation is the only way, try the director of engineering first.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Thanks, i will be doing so!

here is my reply to her at any rate:

"Kathleen,

I'm disappointed in this experience with HTC's tech support, you are unable to provide me with the source code I request, although HTC is legally obligated to do so. Further more, your EULA is miss leading and incorrect. Is there any possible way you can elevate my request to the next tier?

Regards,

Mr. X"

Reply:

"Dear Mr. X,

Thank you for your response. Even if I did escalate the issue, the escalations team would only tell you the same thing. We do not have this information that you need. You will have to go through developer.htc.com. We do not have this information and I have pointed you in the right direction but I cannot go any further. We as HTC Technical Support do not have any knowledge of the binary codes you are requesting. I understand that by law we have to help you, but I personally cannot. I cannot give you information that I do not possess.

Sincerely,

Kathleen

HTC"
[Desire General] saumaun:
Customer service fail.

Honestly, they won't do SQUAT until someone compels them. In other words, they need a court summons informing them they are being sued, or astrongly worded legal document reminding them of their obligations under the GPL (YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO RELEASE THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT POST THE SOURCE, HTC!),
[Desire General] MightySashiman:
for ****s sake do they need us to raid their lame dev team office or what ? :eek:

You Americans should start a class action against htc, we in europe (in france at least) don't have this kind of legal tool available :(
[Desire General] superliam:
Mr x can you post your original email so in know what to add to mine?
[Desire General] xNixon:
online partition whon't help perhaps ? seeing them all around the web for all kind of things..

email and name is all thats needed, might be able to get a few thousand subrcribers and make a more solid case then perhaps ?
[Desire General] superliam:
Its not 2.2 froyo kernel I believe
[Desire General] bedeabc:
Class action anyone?
[Desire General] :
Lol, that's a good one.
[Desire General] andycted:
That girl has been far more polite and helpful than most customer support I've seen in my life.

agreed that this is messed up, but that customer support representative has done what she can and what she is paid for, she shouldn't be blamed for corporate failures

Sent from videotext, using the remote
[Desire General] olipheus:
+1

Armijn @ gpl-violations, could you please give us an update on how the case is going? Have you got any response from HTC or are you still working on a kick ass aproach? :)
[Desire General] forelli:
If they don't answer, we can start asking the online-tech news (engadget, gizmodo and co) to write about it, sure HTC will take it serious once it's all over the place like facebook, twitter etc.
[Desire General] olipheus:
I've actually already contacted a swedish web magazine, with a dedicated Android department, to look into it. Not sure they will tho, but I hope they will.

Getting a bigger tech-news site to acknowledge the problem would be awesome! Who's up for it? (I'm not really familiar with the bigger ones :S)
[Desire General] forelli:
I've just sent 2 tweets: 1 to Gizmodo, 1 to engadget, with a link to this thread:

HTC hasn't released the Desire 2.2 Froyo kernel source 3 months after debut, unlike 2 days after for the evo, http://bit.ly/ceRm3e

f.

from @Darth_Sideous

EDIT: Darth_Sideous @htc What about the Desire 2.2 froyo kernel source? Not released yet, 3 months+ after the launch. Was after 2 days for the evo...
[Desire General] lukacs.attila:
Try to spam htc's twitter now. Their big press conference is progress now.
[Desire General] marinierb:
Best plan yet! :D:D
[Desire General] olipheus:
They don't answer... already tried asking them on twitter... might be fun to annoy them a bit tho. Eye for an eye ;)
[Desire General] superliam:
What's there twitter ?
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
I'm already gathering all the info as well as my correspondence with HTC tech support to push out an article on ppcgeeks.com, the more bad press they get the better.
[Desire General] dzire187:
HTC has replied:

free translation:

I am going to ask them for a timeframe in my reply...
[Desire General] teppic74:
I get the feeling that HTC thinks it's doing people a favour by releasing the source code, rather than it being a fundamental requirement of the licence to use the kernel.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Why do some techs play dumb and others know whats going on really.
[Desire General] marinierb:
Some are future managers. :p
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
well the girl i talked to was nice and at least helpful.

the first guy i got was a master of copy and paste and asshattery. So he is deaf getting a management seat.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
I've heard back from armijn

@ gpl-violations.org

"thank you for your report.

HTC is aware of the issue. They told us they are working on resolving

it.

armijn

"
[Desire General] abc27:
What is so difficult about releasing the source? It's not as if anything has to be developed. It's just uploading the files to their server.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
they are working on making any proprietary code, removed or into modules.

so we don't get to see their secrets. Thats what i assume.
[Desire General] teppic74:
No. There's no proprietary code. They're just being lazy, or their development and marketing departments aren't talking to each other.
[Desire General] snq-:
agreed.

besides, releasing closed source modules is also a gray area
[Desire General] teppic74:
Also, unless the source can be compiled into a kernel that works as the released one, they'd still be violating the GPL. There's no ability to remove bits from the modified code.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Well, its all speculation as to why they are screwing the pooch on this so bad.
[Desire General] teppic74:
Yup. They could still potentially be sued with binary-only modules. The Desire kernel only comes with one module, which is under the GPL (even if it does load a closed source firmware).
[Desire General] snq-:
bad publicity is also publicity, look at apple ;)

and let's be honest, how many people know what gpl stands for?
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Enough people to start a pretty sweet riot LOL I can throw a mean rock....

At any rate, you're correct.
[Desire General] :
I love all the meta lawyers and meta coders that currently reside on xda claiming to know what work needs to be done in order for the source code to be released.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
If you took the care to read the GPL v2, you would notice these "meta lawyers and meta coders" are correct

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. "

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
[Desire General] teppic74:
This is the vital bit (my emphasis):

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
[Desire General] snq-:
gpl v3 doesn't apply to linux

"Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel

is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not

v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."

but then again, i'm just a meta-lawyer

care to name one?

i assume evo and dinc(!) don't have all of these tons of codes

how come

no, they can't freely choose what to publish
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
If JCopernicus took care to read the thread or at the very least research the issue at hand he would have figured out quite fast the Linux kernel is not GPL v3 its GPL v2.

Which in turn has negated all his previous claims and statements in this thread.
[Desire General] teppic74:
The GPLv3 still certainly wouldn't allow HTC to include proprietary code in the kernel or choose what to publish. If anything it's stricter in order to make closing off the software more difficult. The 60 day condition of GPLv3 - this is from memory so may not be 100% accurate - is not a grace period to violate the GPL, but a period in which the copyright holder has the ability to withdraw your right to distribute the software -after- you've stopped violating the licence.

edit: Just checked, that's correct. The GPLv3 is much stricter, as it gives the copyright holder the ability to prevent you from distributing the program ever again if you violate the licence more than once.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
let slash dot have at them

http://slashdot.org/submission/1334234/HTC-Dragging-Feet-On-GPL-Source-Yet-Again
[Desire General] mercianary:
I was just reading the gpl. Correct me if I'm wrong but section 3 says you may copy and distribute the program as long as you provide source aswell... does this mean we can request source from the carrier who branded our roms? Because they copied and distributed the kernel in their roms.

If we (that's the royal we because my carrier is useless and hasn't released froyo yet) can put pressure on the carriers they will put pressure on HTC. You never know your carrier may even provide the source.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again?
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
The carriers send in requests to HTC to brand. all the source would be handed by them if we are eligible for it. In this case the kernel source would be branding independent.
[Desire General] teppic74:
If we distribute an already modified version of the kernel, it's not up to us to provide the sources for it, it's whoever actually modified the kernel (HTC). However, if we modify the kernel ourselves, we must distribute the source too. HTC only has to provide source to people who receive the kernel from them, as far as I know. The networks would have to relay the written offer from HTC (which is included in the EULA), they wouldn't be obliged to provide the source themselves.
[Desire General] npshev:
Isn't it great how copyrights are only enforced when big business thinks they're losing money?
[Desire General] Uqbar:
That will hardly work.<br>The article is too harsh. Good luck, anyway.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Too harsh?

Its the facts, if they are harsh thats HTCs problem.

Do you suggest we rub their belly and give them a cookie while we ask for the source yet again?
[Desire General] Uqbar:
I ment too harsh for SlashDot, not for HTC.

I think that a letter written by a laywer will provide better results than an article on SlashDot, though.
[Desire General] teppic74:
LWN might be interested in this:

http://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#contact

(They won't need an explanation of the GPL)
[Desire General] olipheus:
+1

Eventho I think an article in, let's say, Gizmodo, would do the trick! Or atleast put some preassure on them..
[Desire General] teppic74:
Pressure from internet sites can definitely force companies to change things. Look at Vodafone's branding update to the Desire - it was picked up by several tech sites, and reversed a few days later.
[Desire General] Uqbar:
Why not crossfiring them? Slashdot, Engadget, Gizmodo, Wired, FT, NYT and the LinuxFoundation.Org, of course.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
You can use this article i pushed to PPCGeeks front page to tip off if you like

http://www.ppcgeeks.com/2010/09/15/htc-dragging-feet-on-gpl-source-yet-again/
[Desire General] Beaverman20:
i chose to send them an email, both informing then that i request the source code. and informing them that i will pass any information i recieve will be posted here, and possibly be passed on to http://gpl-violations.org/index.html for further legal action.
[Desire General] teppic74:
This shouldn't really have been moved to general - it's mainly of interest to developers.
[Desire General] :
There's nothing of developmental substance in this thread.
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Bout the same as your input here then :rolleyes: LOL
[Desire General] :
That's tortful.

Expect to here from my lawyer soon.*

*he has to finish drafting up the class action lawsuit against htc first.
[Desire General] BlueHawk:
HTC will I expect eventually release the code. They always seem to be tardy about it. Same thing happened with their kernel source code for the Hero. Legal action seems a bit much. Maybe a nudge via one of the on-line sites might move them along as people have suggested. :)
[Desire General] abc27:
I don't understand how crap can remain unfiltered in Development but something as vital as the 2.2 Kernel source gets shunted aside to general.
[Desire General] andycted:
I was actually going to notice the same, but since moderation is likely to remain a joke all the same, I skipped it.

Sent from videotext, using the remote
[Desire General] -Mr. X-:
Be sure to tell them i've pointed and laughed at you. It will add to their perception of my character. Or cause them to do the same... :cool:
[Desire General] teppic74:
I think the attitude that legal action is too much for GPL violation is why companies like HTC behave like that. The Linux kernel is not public domain code, it's under a strict licence that HTC is fundamentally violating, and as such they are breaking the law. I'm not suggesting that people here should try to take legal action (they have no basis anyway), but the threat of action would be completely appropriate.
[Desire General] npshev:
Sorry if this is a little off-topic. Am I entitled to seek a refund for my Desire on the grounds that HTC breached the EULA by not releasing the Kernel source?

Having access to the Kernel source was arguably the main reason I chose an Android phone.
[Desire General] olipheus:
I've written an article on swedroid.se. I sure hope it gets published :)
[Desire General] FloHimself:
The HTC proprietary libraries aren't public domain either. So redistributing these may be breaking the law.
[Desire General] teppic74:
True, though it does HTC no financial harm since you need to buy the phone (and therefore already receive a legal copy of these unmodified libraries) in order to use custom ROMs. If the libraries had to be purchased separately there'd be far more of an issue, I think.
[Desire General] BlueHawk:
You can go down the route and get the FSF to pursue this legally - since by "law" HTC must produce the source code in a reasonable amount of time upon request. My point however, is that HTC has not in the past, shown that it was unwilling to release the code, just that the organization was real slow about it. Whether that is because HTC is inept at getting its sh*t together, or that it has to get the vetted source code past the lawyers remains a matter of speculation. :)
[Desire General] teppic74:
That's true, but we don't know if HTC's released the software previously only as a result of legal threats, or if they have just been incredibly slow to sort it out themselves.

Either way it doesn't matter as far as the licence is concerned - they don't have an indefinite period to get around to it, just as if we walked out of a shop with a copy of Windows saying we'd get around to paying for it in six months, we'd probably not get a kind response.
[Desire General] FloHimself:
It isn't crucial for their copyright if it is a financial harm to HTC or not. There is also a difference between receiving copyrighted material from its autor or a autorized distributor and receiving it from dubious sources on the internet. You got a license from HTC to use the software you received on your phone with your phone or by a official OTA, not the ones floating around somewhere on internet.
[Desire General] teppic74:
Yes, there'd almost certainly still be copyright infringement in all custom ROMs, but because everybody who owns a Desire already has these libraries, and cannot possibly pay for them separately, HTC isn't likely to pursue anything, and isn't coming to any harm by it.

With the GPL violation it's a bit of a different scenario because a GPL developer releases the code under the explicit requirement that it remains open - that is really the only condition of distributing it - and HTC is failing to do that.

(edit: legally I'd concede that both are copyright infringements. But aside from that one results in loss, and the other doesn't)
[Desire General] FloHimself:
Again, it isn't crucial for an infringement if HTC takes any action or not. And again, there is a difference in receiving the libraries from HTC or from a non copyright holder, even if they are binary identical and you paid for one of them. You don't have the right to download the libraries somewhere else because HTC isn't selling them separately.

There isn't much of a difference. A GPL developer persist on a contract (the license) covered by law. HTC persists on their copyright, without any aditional contract, covered by law. The fact that one side persists on closed source and the other on open sources doesn't make any difference. The infringement are comparable...

I'm on your side for the possible GPL violation. But we should try understanding the big picture...
[Desire General] teppic74:
Yep, I wasn't contradicting you. I was just clarifying what I meant.

I think the infringement is comparable (since in both cases software is being copied without permission), but not the consequences of that infringement. That's all I was saying.
[Desire General] marinierb:
I think what these companies need to realise is that a lot of people buy their phones precicly because we can hack them and modify the source and make them do weird and wonderful things. If they decide to make it harder and harder to do that, they might be surprised to see their market share decline.

iPhone, anyone?
[Desire General] Beaverman20:
i actually got a positive response :D

and you do all know that this **** we are doing is illegal too?
[Desire General] :
Please explain what exactly is illegal about what we're doing? What exactly is illegal about rooting our phone and modifying the OS running on our phone? We're probably breaking the terms of the waranty agreement but nothing that is illegal as in "not allowed by the law" AFAIK.
[Desire General] Beaverman20:
ohh the rooting is not illigal... i mean the posting of emails form htc ;)
[Desire General] saumaun:
How is posting their emails illegal? :P
[Desire General] foxmeister:
Sorry, but that isn't true.

The vast, vast majority of people never hack their phones, or visit a site like this.

I would certainly like to see mobile phone companies making their phones more "developer" friendly, and doubly so when it comes to an open source OS like Android, but we are an almost insignificant minority in the market.

Regards,

Dave
[Desire General] superliam:
Dear Liam

Thank you for bringing to my attention the missing HTC Desire 2.2 source code from the developer.htc.com website. I shall pass this request on to the web team for their immediate consideration. Whilst I am unable to offer a time-frame as to its appearance on the developer.htc.com website, I would expect it to be shortly. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

To send a reply to this message or let me know I have successfully answered your question log in to our ContactUs site using your email address and your ticket number 10GBCW38ENA002114.

Sincerely,

Katherine

HTC

i wonder how long shortly will be ?
[Desire General] atomfix:
This was in HTC's warrenty aggrement jumbo thingy......

Until the date that is three years after you acquired the Software, you

may obtain a copy of the source code corresponding to the binaries for

GPL-licensed file by sending a request to HTC customer service at www.

htc.com, and HTC will send you a link to such source code.
[Desire General] atomfix:
Iv'e sent a e-mail to license-violation@gnu.org to bring this upon there attention.
[Desire General] atomfix:
Dear **** *******,

Thank you for contacting HTC regarding the missing sourcecode.The matter has been brought to our attention and passed to the relevant repartment. I expect this to be available shortly though I cant give an exact time for this.

To send a reply to this message or let me know I have successfully answered your question log in to our ContactUs site using your email address and your ticket number 10GBCW38ENA002213.

Sincerely,

Katherine

HTC

*This was the e-mail i just recieved from HTC, Very fast e-mail response (6minutes)"

I say keep e-mailing HTC
[Desire General] teppic74:
GPL Violations are already aware of this, they said that HTC has done it before.

HTC's response is of course inadequate. A promise of releasing the code is a step, though it doesn't make it any more legal. And this isn't even a promise, it's a vague indication that it will probably be released at some point in the future.
[Desire General] Beaverman20:
Lol @ std response we all get :P "thank you for bringing it to my attention" when you get the same info 20 times, we are not "bringing it to your attention"