Formal request for source code
- Thread starter Lokifish Marz
- Start date
superdragonpt
Recognized Developer
superdragonpt
Recognized Developer
I'm not very active on omate section.
So if I understood right, no one was able to compile an working kernel ?
I though omate gave the full build able sources ?
I think I'll be luckily by adapting from another mt6572 device source .
I'll start working on it this weekend.
Regards
superdragonpt
Recognized Developer
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
Last edited:
Stop buying Mediatek-based devices
As much as the practice of charing for source code is despicable (and at the moment I feel nothing but meprise for MTK and for the manufacturer of my Star V1277 because they are the main obstacle that stands between me and a clean CyanogenMod port), it is perfectly legal. Nothing in the GPL requires distributors to distribute the source code *free of charge*. The expectation at the time of drafting the GPLv2 (1991, when most of the world was still disconnected or on slow dial-up) was that distributors would charge for media such as CD-ROM + shipping and handling. The advent of broadband internet has reduced distribution cost massively and while nowaday most reasonable people expect source code under the GPL to be downloadable free of charge, that expectation is not legally binding. You can make it legally binding by adding to the terms and condition of your GPL-released software a clause stating something like "source code must be made available for download on the internet free of charge".
MTK violates the GPL if it distributes binary code without making the source code available. Since it is the handset manufacturer that distribute the binaries (with the phone), it is them who we need to go after, not Mediatek. Making source code available for a fee is good enough to comply with the GPL. In a perfect world, they would be able to charge that fee only one time, because they cannot prevent the recipient from distributing the code further.
What bothers me is that device manufactures can get away with adding their proprietary drivers to the mix in a way that makes it impossible for Free Software developers to take the devices to the next level.
Bottom line: after two years of service, perfectly useful hardware is rendered useless by obsolete software that can't be easily replaced. Manufacturers have an interest in this kind of obsolence, because users have to buy new devices to stay protected. This was my first Mediatek based device and it will be the last until the availability of source code improves. Contrast that with the Google Nexus 5 that I recently bought for my wife. Not only Google has a good track record at providing binary upgrades for users who do not want to deal with the details: it took me less time to roll my own modified Nexus 5 build, clean from source code, than it has taken me researching the sad state of affaire with Mediatek-based devices. Even if Google's devices cost double as Mediatek-based ones, their lifespan is more than double because of manufacturer support and maintenance and source code availability to empower users to self-support and extend device life as reasonably as it can be extended.
As much as the practice of charing for source code is despicable (and at the moment I feel nothing but meprise for MTK and for the manufacturer of my Star V1277 because they are the main obstacle that stands between me and a clean CyanogenMod port), it is perfectly legal. Nothing in the GPL requires distributors to distribute the source code *free of charge*. The expectation at the time of drafting the GPLv2 (1991, when most of the world was still disconnected or on slow dial-up) was that distributors would charge for media such as CD-ROM + shipping and handling. The advent of broadband internet has reduced distribution cost massively and while nowaday most reasonable people expect source code under the GPL to be downloadable free of charge, that expectation is not legally binding. You can make it legally binding by adding to the terms and condition of your GPL-released software a clause stating something like "source code must be made available for download on the internet free of charge".
MTK violates the GPL if it distributes binary code without making the source code available. Since it is the handset manufacturer that distribute the binaries (with the phone), it is them who we need to go after, not Mediatek. Making source code available for a fee is good enough to comply with the GPL. In a perfect world, they would be able to charge that fee only one time, because they cannot prevent the recipient from distributing the code further.
What bothers me is that device manufactures can get away with adding their proprietary drivers to the mix in a way that makes it impossible for Free Software developers to take the devices to the next level.
Bottom line: after two years of service, perfectly useful hardware is rendered useless by obsolete software that can't be easily replaced. Manufacturers have an interest in this kind of obsolence, because users have to buy new devices to stay protected. This was my first Mediatek based device and it will be the last until the availability of source code improves. Contrast that with the Google Nexus 5 that I recently bought for my wife. Not only Google has a good track record at providing binary upgrades for users who do not want to deal with the details: it took me less time to roll my own modified Nexus 5 build, clean from source code, than it has taken me researching the sad state of affaire with Mediatek-based devices. Even if Google's devices cost double as Mediatek-based ones, their lifespan is more than double because of manufacturer support and maintenance and source code availability to empower users to self-support and extend device life as reasonably as it can be extended.
You are correct to a degree, MTK can charge for source but cannot charge more than the cost of providing the source code. There is also the sub-licensing issue where MTK says you cannot distribute source or make it accessible to the public.
Here's where it gets interesting. According to Omate/Umeox and MTK, MTK is acting as a turnkey so Umeox doesn't even compile the firmware. All the compiling is done by MTK and they give Umeox precompiled binaries. MTK is compiling from kanged source from another device so there's another twist. So MTK is using source from another device, proprietary drivers and simply kludging the job and giving Umeox the end result. So there is no true pure source for the x201. That can then be used by them to argue that what was given was well beyond their obligations.
Here's where it gets interesting. According to Omate/Umeox and MTK, MTK is acting as a turnkey so Umeox doesn't even compile the firmware. All the compiling is done by MTK and they give Umeox precompiled binaries. MTK is compiling from kanged source from another device so there's another twist. So MTK is using source from another device, proprietary drivers and simply kludging the job and giving Umeox the end result. So there is no true pure source for the x201. That can then be used by them to argue that what was given was well beyond their obligations.
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
