Welcome to XDA

Search to go directly to your device's forum

Register an account

Unlock full posting privileges

Ask a question

No registration required
Thread Closed

Barnes and Nobel is legally obligated to release source

OP AdamOutler

7th January 2012, 01:23 AM   |  #1  
It would seem that Barnes and Nobel is betraying the most sacred of things in the open-source world, The General Public License(GPL). As open source programmers we all use the GPL daily. The GPL is what keeps Open-Source work like the Linux kernel free, modifiable and re-distributable. I tried to compile the sources provided by Barnes and Nobel, but they are incomplete. They will not compile.. I'm not the only one, others have tried and failed as well.

So, I made a post on the Barnes and Nobel website. Last time I checked, at about 1PM today, the post had received about 20 responses and 38 "laurels" (their version of thanks). Each response was positive and that is an extraordinary amount of support, considering some of their "top laurled posts" have received 35 Laurels in 4 weeks.

Barnes and Nobel deleted my request for source code granted by the GPL.

These screen-shots were cached on my home computer before I went to sleep last night.
Cached screenshot1:http://i41.tinypic.com/szy847.png
Cached Screenshot2:http://i43.tinypic.com/2vsm7v9.png



Text in case something happens to the images or the host is blocked in your country:
Quote:

Barnes and Noble, you have a legal obligation to release full, compilable source. I have tried to compile the provided sources here to no avail. The provided sources are incomplete.



1.4.0 source: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/PRe...let_1-4.tar.gz

1.4.1 source: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/PRe...t_1-4-1.tar.gz



The following quotes are from GPL-Violations.org http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html

Quote:

What kind of source code do I have to publish under the GNU GPL?
The GNU GPL demands that as soon as you distribute GPL licensed software in executable format you make available the "complete corresponding source code". The GNU GPL also contains a definition of this term:

“ 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. ”

How can I verify that my source code release is complete?
This is quite easy. If you only use source code provided in that release, and you can use this source code to produce a working form of the executable code, then the source code release seems complete.

If the build process fails, or you end up with a non-working executable, or you have no way to install the resulting executable, then clearly something is missing.


By releasing uncompilable source, you are not only making yourself look bad... You're violating the terms of service you agreed to by using the Linux kernel in the first place... You're loosing footholes in the open-source community.. You're also putting yourself up for legal action.



As a book seller, you should respect the fact that Open-Source work falls into the same category as a classic novel. It is a public treasure and should be treated as such. Your failure to abide by the rules is not only offensive, but it is illegal. Using Linux is not a free cash cow. Linux is free as in "freedom of speech", not free as in "free beer". You have a duty to release full kernel and U-Boot sources.



I've requested sources, now please provide full, compilable, executable source.

They DELETED my request for corresponding source code because it does not comply with their terms of service agreement. This is unacceptable by the licensing they agreed upon in the GPL:
Code:
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.)
  • Barnes and Nobel sold the device with side-loading enabled, let the tech sites review it, then locked out that feature.
  • Barnes and Nobel is refusing applications for those without Tax ID numbers or business licenses to develop Open-Source Android apps on the Open-Source Android platform.
  • Barnes and Nobel is in a state of non-compliance with the GPL.

I recommend contacting Barnes and Noblel about these in the following ways:
  1. Customer Service: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/customerservice/contactus
  2. Device Support: https://nookdeveloper.barnesandnoble...t/support.html
  3. Direct Email: service@barnesandnoble.com and support@book.com

This site is called XDA-Developers because of the GPL. Without the GPL, we would not be conducting legitimate development, it would be something else like XDA-Hackers. As DEVELOPERS, we need to stand up for our rights and get the tools we need to develop. Please take action, in a professional manner XDA-Developers. Every e-mail and support request counts.
Last edited by AdamOutler; 7th January 2012 at 02:50 AM.
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to AdamOutler For This Useful Post: [ View ]
7th January 2012, 01:44 AM   |  #2  
conundrum768's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Detroit, MI
Thanks Meter: 81
 
258 posts
Join Date:Joined: Sep 2009
More
Link to the list of elements of a GNU License and the actions which would form a violation thereof: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html .

Address for reporting violations: license-violation@gnu.org
7th January 2012, 01:49 AM   |  #3  
Member
Thanks Meter: 17
 
91 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamOutler

I recommend contacting Barnes and Noblel about these in the following ways:

  1. Customer Service: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/customerservice/contactus
  2. Device Support: https://nookdeveloper.barnesandnoble...t/support.html
  3. Direct Email: service@barnesandnoble.com and support@book.com

Here is more contact information (the support@book.com and service@barnesandnoble.com seem to correspond to online sales):

General Inquiries: For general questions or comments about Barnes & Noble, Inc.:

Barnes & Noble, Inc.
P.O. Box 111
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

telephone: (800) 962-6177
e-mail: customerservice@bn.com
fax: (201) 559-6910


Also, I don't think they took down your post because they didn't want to comply. I think they took it down because you mentioned legal action.
7th January 2012, 03:21 AM   |  #4  
I reposted without anything having to do with 'litigation' http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/.../idi-p/1263241

Quote:

0
Nook tablet source will not compile
Status: New
by AdamOutler 9 minutes ago
Status: New

Barnes and Noble, myself and others have attempted to compile the GPL-Protected Kernel source code but it is incomplete. Please release proper GPL compliant Source Code.



As a distributor of Open-Source software, and not just a book-store, you must realize that your end-users have a right to compile the code. It is a mandated, built-in function of the device under the terms of the GPL-Protected Linux kernel. It is also a gauranteed right which we, the end users and developers have.



This issue is of a technical nature and the same people who design the software are the people who need to post the proper kernel sources. I realize that Barnes and Noble has implemented some sort of a chain-of-trust based security and stripped it from the kernel, however, this is the wrong way to do it. If you wish to implement chain-of-trust based security, it must be done in a way that allows the end user to compile a kernel in compliance with the GPL.



We, the end users, have a right to the entire, complete kernel source. We have a right to compile the code. We have a right to modify the code. We have a right to redistribute the code. We have a right to use our devices as we see fit because it is GPL-protected and we purchased the device from you with that inherited.



My previous post was deleted from this forum for non-compliance with your message board rules. It now resides safely at XDA-Developers here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....php?t=1432003 This post conforms with your policy regarding litigation and boils down to only the technicalities which require resolution in order for me to use my device under your terms of service.

Last edited by AdamOutler; 7th January 2012 at 03:24 AM.
7th January 2012, 03:23 AM   |  #5  
succulent's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 448
 
241 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2010
Adam,

You can compile the NT source with android_4430BN_defconfig.
7th January 2012, 04:02 AM   |  #6  
Quote:
Originally Posted by succulent

Adam,

You can compile the NT source with android_4430BN_defconfig.

Thanks, but it didn't work

Code:
Texas Instruments X-Loader 1.41 (Oct 21 2011 - 14:00:05)
Start not on PWRON, skipping power button check.
mmc read: Invalid size
Starting OS Bootloader from MMC/SD1 ...


U-Boot 1.1.4-acclaim1.4_1.4.0.1029^{} (Nov 11 2011 - 12:34:20)

Load address: 0x80e80000
DRAM:  1024 MB
Using default environment

In:    serial
Out:   serial
Err:   serial
hw_status 0x2b vbus_status 0x84
Detection done: USB2PHYCORE 0x00a06260
MAX17042+UBOOT: battery type=LG
MAX17042+UBOOT: gas gauge detected (0x0002)
MAX17042_STATUS (00h) is 0x0002
MAX17042+UBOOT:  BATTERY      Detected!
MAX17042+UBOOT:POR detected!
 No valid max17042 init data found, assume no battery history 
MAX17042_Version (21h) is 0x0092
MAX17042_DesignCap (18h) is 0x07d0
MAX17042_OCV (fbh) is 0xfeab
MAX17042_FSTAT (fdh) is 0x3950
MAX17042_SOCvf (ffh) is 0xd692
uboot verify: 1d CONFIG is 2210 ; should be 2210 & 0xFDFB
uboot verify: 2a RELAXCFG is 083b ; should be 083b
uboot verify: 29 FILTERCFG is 87a4 ; should be 87a4
uboot verify: 28 LEARNCFG is 2406 ; should be 2406 & 0xFF0F
uboot verify: 18 DesignCap is 07d0 ; should be 205c
max17042_write_custom_para: use hardcoded values
ICHGTerm = 0x0140
 use hardcoded Capacity 0x205c
VFSOC = 0xcb7a
fullcap0=0x2067 VFSOC=0xcb7a remcap=0x41ee
MAX17042_STATUS (00h) is 0x0002
STATUS = 0x0002 -- clearing POR
MAX17042_STATUS (00h) is 0x0000
Max17042 init is done
SOC 203%, booting.
Board revision PVT
Booting from sd
Autobooting in 0 seconds, press <SPACE> to stop...
mmc read: Invalid size

2682712 bytes read
booti: bad boot image magic
OMAP44XX SDP #
7th January 2012, 04:13 AM   |  #7  
Senior Member
Flag San Antonio
Thanks Meter: 10
 
121 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2010
More
Laureled and commented.

Sent from my BNTV250 using Tapatalk
7th January 2012, 04:20 AM   |  #8  
Member
Thanks Meter: 2
 
48 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2009
also sent email to license-violation@gnu.org
everyone should the more response the better...
7th January 2012, 04:22 AM   |  #9  
lavero.burgos's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Guayaquil
Thanks Meter: 1,320
 
2,518 posts
Join Date:Joined: Mar 2011
Donate to Me
More
DOne commented and "laureled" your new post Adam
7th January 2012, 05:07 AM   |  #10  
c0ldburn3r's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Wet Side of Washington
Thanks Meter: 307
 
1,221 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2010
More
Did my duty on their website. I will follow up with emails directly to them.

Thread Closed Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes