Formal request for source code

[kuronosan]

If you want to help with kernel development you can start by joining up on plus or hangouts, where ideas get shared much more rapidly.

sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

 

[Lgrootnoob]

bump, link me the hangouts room

 

[superdragonpt]

Just ordered mine yesterday...
As soon as it arrives i will start working on OMATE sources

Regards

 

[kuronosan]

Awesome, we're stalled right now, so we can start up after the smoke clears and you get your unit n

sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

 

[superdragonpt]

Awesome, we're stalled right now, so we can start up after the smoke clears and you get your unit n

sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

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

 

[Lokifish Marz]

I though omate gave the full build able sources ?

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

 

[superdragonpt]

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

 

[death_entry]

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

What device is this? Ooo can't wait to see what you manage to sort out

 

[yuv4L]

Stop buying Mediatek-based devices

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.

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.

 

[Lokifish Marz]

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.

 

[pakalrtb]

message deleted, made a dunb question and realized it was already answered

 

[Kane1706]

Give the Source of MT6592 (T)?