I have posted a public formal request for source code HERE. If you want properly secured working firmware, AOSP, CM and other ROMs, then reshare the G+ post and tag and plus Omate TrueSmart , MediaTek and the Free Software Foundation.
Formal request for source code
- Thread starter Lokifish Marz
- Start date
There is a petition running:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aosp-support-for-mediatek-devices/
source: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2636257
Last edited:
Petitions are pretty much useless. There was over 100000 signatures for moto to release source. Result, nothing, nada, zilch. Spreading the word and getting the tech news/blogs to pick up on it is more ideal as it may get the actuall owners of the Linux kernel notice. From there, additional pressure and possible legal action.
Well android authority picked it up. If we perhaps collaborate with the CyanogenMod for Mediatek ppl, we could get the XDA portal to cover out plight.
http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2274332
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
You should pursue your specific device manufacturers for distributing source code, and not MediaTek as they are not in obligation relations with You or anybody else but with other hardware manufacturers which utilizes their SoC.
As the matter of fact, I asked three manufacturers who are involved in producing Alcatel's devices, and they provided me with source code I asked for (devices based on MT6572, MT6589).
What MTK charging for is bundle of sources and technical documentations for their hardware, and they are charging other companies who uses that electronics, not end users. Keep in mind that MTK don't producing phones but instead electronics. So next time knock on right door before throw hate over internet.
As the matter of fact, I asked three manufacturers who are involved in producing Alcatel's devices, and they provided me with source code I asked for (devices based on MT6572, MT6589).
What MTK charging for is bundle of sources and technical documentations for their hardware, and they are charging other companies who uses that electronics, not end users. Keep in mind that MTK don't producing phones but instead electronics. So next time knock on right door before throw hate over internet.
Charging for Linux Kernel sources is piracy, regardless of who is being charged. MTKs policy just adds a level of abstraction. They are distributing the kernel, they need to provide source.
They are distributing kernel but not to individuals like You but to device manufacturers, so what do You want from MTK?
I'm aware of this, Sir, and they are to, but somebody wrong interpreted this, they are charging for technical documentation for hardware manufacturers not for individuals and not for source code. Source codes must be provided by device manufacturers from which an individual bought device because one must accept that MTK can't take responsibility for firms which make phones with their SoCs, especially because there are many clones of popular devices like SGS3 or SGS4 on market, that is whay you need to search source on other place, not MTK. Everyone know how deep are MTK's SoCs involved in plagiarism but that is not their fault, they just produce cheap chips.
Look here an example how serious firms like Alcatel (who now have CE) always provide full codes for their devices, even for MTK ones: http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/alcatel/files/
You can find here MTK source codes for many popular SoCs.
You can't expect same behaviour from all manufacturers why make devices with MTK chips, especially from those low-profile companies form east universe.
If you have a Samsung Device you get the Kernel Sources from opensource.samsung.com
and not from Snapdragon or Qualcomm
And petitions dont work because the Vendor dont care about
Found on Github:
https://github.com/aniruddha-adhikary/mt6572_kernel
and not from Snapdragon or Qualcomm
And petitions dont work because the Vendor dont care about
Found on Github:
https://github.com/aniruddha-adhikary/mt6572_kernel
Last edited:
No they are not. Device manufacturers are distributing the kernel, it's up to them to release their sources and they are the legally binded entities to do so. MediaTek is not even able to deliver sources for such requests because they are not the holders of the software and any GPL source request to them has the same legal worth as to asking your grandmother for sources.
Sad to see such horse-raddish misinformation still going on on XDA.
Actually, they are. They provide a compilation server with no way to get the source off, only patch.
And the Mediatek fanclub arrives right on cue...
Neither Omate nor Umeox has the Mediatek sources. Mediatek has done a great job at keeping the code they stole from American companies under lock and key, which is why porting Cyanogenmod to mediatek devices has been such a slow and near impossible task.
Without kernel sources or appropriate drivers, there is little the dev community can do.
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
Last edited:
Not sure how true this article is: http://www.androidauthority.com/mediatek-gpl-360190/
but it says that OMate doesn't even have source and that they receive binaries from MediaTek and are unable to distribute source they don't have (obviously). In that case, MediaTek is required to release source.
but it says that OMate doesn't even have source and that they receive binaries from MediaTek and are unable to distribute source they don't have (obviously). In that case, MediaTek is required to release source.
This is completely true. Mediatek demanded an exuberant price for code that should already be available under GPL.
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
Lol@mtk fanboism....
Read the GPL dude. Yes they are.
Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
He's actually right there. If I give you code without distributing binaries and you modify the code and distribute binaries, only you are required to give source. If the binaries were made by the OEM, MediaTek is not liable.
The point is that the binaries were given to the OEM by mediatek.
Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
Why such attitude? Remember, it is in my best interest to get that source codes, I'm not MTK fun. I'm only person who's duty is to understand and interpret basics of international business laws. MTK don't distribute anything to END USERS and they have no obligations to them (You, me or anybody here). But they have to device manufacturers, and they have to END USERS. It's a chain. And If you pull GPL legal arguments than you must respect other aspects of international business laws.
So anybody who wants their source code, should search for that at their device manufacturer address, as that is in their jurisdiction, instead of MTK.
You should be aware that there are some firms which make clones of popular devices (breaking law), and what do you expect from them, to respect GPL v2, are you serious? Those companies even have no licences for sale such devices! And on the other side there are some firms which will give you source code on demand.
@jumoog
Nice analogy is with Qualcomm and SAMSUNG.
So anybody who wants their source code, should search for that at their device manufacturer address, as that is in their jurisdiction, instead of MTK.
You should be aware that there are some firms which make clones of popular devices (breaking law), and what do you expect from them, to respect GPL v2, are you serious? Those companies even have no licences for sale such devices! And on the other side there are some firms which will give you source code on demand.
@jumoog
Nice analogy is with Qualcomm and SAMSUNG.
MediaTek may try to cover up for courts in Taiwan/China, but they are the bad guys here that charge Umeox/Omate for something they must supply for free to the OEM and the OEM to the end customers.
Courts favor domestic companies, compare to Apple vs Samsung.
But if MediaTek wants to have OEM in the Western world, they will have to comply to the GPL.
MediaTek had OEMs in Western World last time I checked. European Union / France is western enough for my understanding and they do business under CE (Conformité Européenne) regullary. But does your OEM have ITC/FTC/CE approval for what it's doing, that is different question and normally if they don't, they will redirect you to MediaTek probably to shake you off.
Similar threads
Top Liked Posts
-
There are no posts matching your filters.
-
7I have posted a public formal request for source code HERE. If you want properly secured working firmware, AOSP, CM and other ROMs, then reshare the G+ post and tag and plus Omate TrueSmart , MediaTek and the Free Software Foundation.2
Lol@mtk fanboism....
Read the GPL dude. Yes they are.
Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 22
You are not an expert of international law and patent rights didn't You?
In some point you are in right, but there is flaw in your logic: Umeox/Omate is not FCC certified for selling products and, so it is hard to expect that they would behave like Verzion on market. Umeox/Omate are absent from US market for good reason (like this i.e). People why bought their products should search for sing on rear side or on the box before taking complaint about breaking their rights.
On the other side, we in Europe have CE (FCC equivalent), and as ALU (Alcatel-Lucent) is now ONLY certified MTK OEM, they can sell products with MTK but they provided us with source codes, unlike Umeox/Omate. For my knowledge ALU is only firm on EU which have legalized selling of MTK products. And they are providing source codes for free.
So I don't get it? Why attack on MTK? Why not on Umeox/Omate and other OEMs which dont have licence for selling GSM equipment at all? How can you expect justice from firm which don't have approval for what they doing? And how you expect from MTK to take responsibility for their actions? You can't be serious.
Take a look at this chain of production (in my case):
MTK (System-On-Chip) -> TCL (Board) - TCT (Device) -> ALU (OEM Branding) -> TELENOR (Operator Rebranding) -> End User.
You can't jump from end of the chain to top because there are many hoops between.1
Charging for Linux Kernel sources is piracy, regardless of who is being charged. MTKs policy just adds a level of abstraction. They are distributing the kernel, they need to provide source.1
DAMM.
Let me do my research, concerning your device sensor configs (ALPS/touch/LCM/etc), got an MT6572 source here, that looks complete (only kernel, compiles ok now, after fixing symlinks and build errors )
You should have an projectconfig under data/misc (on / system), but usually its not complete, and sometimes there's diffs comparing to the kernel projectconfig, but should be an good start point
EDIT:
Yeah "your source" Target Product (lcsh72_we_jb3) is the same as the sources i own from another MT6572 device ...
Regards
