[Windows Mobile Software Development] joeyhewitt:
Hello all,

I'm posting about unfair practices I observe from OliNex with their HardSPL packages. I'm most-acquainted with the Topaz variety, but I know they have licensing built into their installers for some of the other devices, which licensing suffers from the same problems the Topaz HardSPL does, so I post it in a general forum.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to OliNex and to all the other hackers, cooks, etc., for the work they do. I'm enjoying a cooked ROM on my Topaz right now, I've donated to OliNex (of my own will, not because I was compelled to get an unlock), and will probably donate to a ROM cook(s) sometime. Thank you to everyone who has contributed, and continues to contribute, to this community and the phones it supports.

But, I feel OliNex is abusing this community, and this is why I post.

[Edit 10 Oct 2010: Having had a few weeks to cool down, I'll admit it wasn't fair to assume I know OliNex's motives and situation. I won't edit my comments because it seems silly to "censor" myself, and because the facts I presented haven't changed. However, I hope whatever may come later in the thread can continue to be constructive discussion about running or flashing unsigned code, instead of just bashing others for the solutions they've given.]

There are dozens of posts in the Topaz HardSPL thread (and at least a few for other devices) from people complaining about how long their "support" requests are taking -- at least a month. I wouldn't expect grade-A technical support from a volunteer-based community of people who have normal jobs (many of which jobs are probably sometimes discouragingly similar to what they do for free on XDA), but what is more infuriating is that this huge burden on OliNex for "support" is totally unnecessary. Most of these XDA members are only asking for "support" because they've been denied access to HardSPL, being told that “Hard-SPL is for non-commercial purposes only, [OliNex] have detected that you appear to already have unlocked another device." Yeah, I guess they could all be lying and they're greedy leeches unlocking bunches of phones and re-selling them with alternate ROMs that increase their value... but since I got this message unlocking my first and only phone, I'm inclined to believe they’re just everyday XDA members unlocking their first, maybe second or third phone, in the course of normal upgrades and/or phones for their sister/father/significant other. The opening post of the Topaz HardSPL thread informs and assures us, "each user gets 1 license, or perhaps 2-3 on request if needed (which is valid forever and all this works as transparently as possible, so won't be a problem at all)" but, skim several random pages of the thread, and all evidence points to the contrary -- this is anything BUT transparent and non-problematic.

Another annoying thing about this so-called "error message" about commercial use, is that support for it clouds up the threads (at least the Topaz one) here at XDA, diminishing the resources to help people who are having legitimate technical issues like sync problems, unsupported Windows OS, antivirus/firewall conflicts (heck, I don't think HardSPL should even be packed, which causes all the antivirus false-positives, but that's a bit of another issue.)

I think OliNex's HardSPLs are essentially payware. I think they have intentionally made a lot of false-positives of "commercial usage" so that people are compelled to either "donate" or file "support" tickets. (If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, and please post your response to the things I'm writing.) I think OliNex have convenient excuses for why the support tickets take so long, but really it's just to get them money from forced donations. I presume there is no real validation of these "support" tickets, other than the assumption that anyone willing to go through this stupid system and wait at least a month must not be a business user.

And if OliNex's HardSPLs are payware, are they paying part of their usage fees to pof and Esteve Espuña Sargatal for JumpSPL (it's only fair if the authors of HaRET get in too, since JumpSPL is based on that), as well as every other XDA member whose collective, for-free (and sometimes GPL'd) work has made their HardSPL possible? I imagine they freely received the MFG SPL image from someone in the community; he should get a cut, too.

Payware doesn't belong on XDA, as per Forum Rule #11. OliNex have real jobs to make money, and XDA doesn't exist to be a free advertising platform for their additional commercial endeavors. I don't know if there's a resolution to this that's fair to everyone; part of why I'm posting is to see what we can come up with together. As I'm pretty ticked about this, right now the only options coming to my mind are:

OliNex release license-free versions of their HardSPLs,

OliNex submit to the XDA community hacking their HardSPLs to be license-free, or at least licensed by XDA itself,

Improve your licensing scheme to not detect as much "commercial usage" (but you'll always have to err to being too restrictive or too permissive; there is no perfect DRM),

or; OliNex retract HardSPL from XDA altogether (perhaps making their already-existing SIM-unlock purchase the only way to get their HardSPLs)

The last option is less than ideal as it may decrease the availability of HardSPL (there is the occasional person who posts that they actually got a free unlock), but it would almost be preferable to me, because I'm sick of this supposedly-free solution that, for a large portion of the community, actually costs time and/or money, and for no apparent reason other than to make OliNex some money. If we have to pay, you can't advertise it here. If you insist on charging and can ethically reconcile that with the facts presented earlier about how you can't even claim the entirety as your own work, then you ought to also give us something we're accustomed to paying for, such as a SIM unlock. Plenty of the other providers of HardSPLs aren't charging for their solution, so why do OliNex get to? In fact, do ANY of them have licensing but OliNex?

Thanks for reading,

Joey Hewitt