• Introducing XDA Computing: Discussion zones for Hardware, Software, and more!    Check it out!

Formal request for source code

Search This thread

BPM

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2006
385
39
Last edited:

Lokifish Marz

Inactive Recognized Developer
Mar 13, 2011
3,848
3,748
Olympus Mons, Mars
martian-imperium.com

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.
 

Jarocks

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2011
178
45
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.

aparupys.jpg


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://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2274332


Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
 

CyberianIce

Senior Member
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.
 

AdamOutler

Retired Senior Recognized Developer
Feb 18, 2011
5,224
9,811
Miami, Fl̨̞̲̟̦̀̈̃͛҃҅͟orida
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [email protected]

CyberianIce

Senior Member
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [email protected]

AndreiLux

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2011
3,209
14,597
They are distributing the kernel, they need to provide source.
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.
 

AdamOutler

Retired Senior Recognized Developer
Feb 18, 2011
5,224
9,811
Miami, Fl̨̞̲̟̦̀̈̃͛҃҅͟orida
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.
 

Jarocks

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2011
178
45
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.
What MTK charging for is bundle of sources [...] 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.
And the Mediatek fanclub arrives right on cue...

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.
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:

Jarocks

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2011
178
45
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.
This is completely true. Mediatek demanded an exuberant price for code that should already be available under GPL.


Tapatalked from my HTC Droid DNA
 

kuronosan

Senior Member
Nov 10, 2008
1,929
638
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.

[email protected] fanboism....

Read the GPL dude. Yes they are.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
 

Jarocks

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2011
178
45
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
 

CyberianIce

Senior Member
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.
 

gerhardo

Senior Member
Aug 23, 2013
309
96
Moto X4
Sony Xperia 5 II
MTK don't distribute anything to END USERS and they have no obligations to them

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.
 

CyberianIce

Senior Member
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.
 

Top Liked Posts

  • There are no posts matching your filters.
  • 7
    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.
    2
    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.

    [email protected] fanboism....

    Read the GPL dude. Yes they are.

    Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
    2
    Directly from MTK. In short, we don't care if you buy our stuff you are still not getting source unless you agree to our license agreement.
    You are not an expert of international law and patent rights didn't You?

    Link to your documentation supporting this claim or retract it.


    You're missing the point. If Verizon tried to carry their products, Qualcomm could simply request that their shipments be denied entry into the US because they contained stolen software. At this point MT would have to show that their licenses are in order. They can't actually do this, which is why you can't get MT stuff in countries that respect software copyrights. You're essentially saying that its the OEM who would technically be at fault, but it wouldn't really matter who is at fault when the shipment of MT parts was crushed and dumped in a landfill.



    And then the OEM turns around and sues MediaTek for selling them illicit software and getting their phones crushed.

    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
    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.
    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
    Incomplete kang from an ipro so not even the source is original.
    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