5 ms·

> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a vi

by joeyo 16y ago

> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a violation of the GPL?

wmf 16y ago
Not if it's a driver.
- joeyo 16y ago
  Good point.
- krakensden 16y ago
  You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).
drivebyacct2 16y ago
Part of the problem is that they haven't shipped Froyo officially. But yes, manufacturers, even HTC, have been up to 6 months late delivering code as required via GPL.
- wmf 16y ago
  If Samsung release full source to their Eclair port, the community would be happy to forward-port the drivers to Froyo. But without source they can't.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Are we missing even Eclair source? I know Froyo and GB have changed things enough with some of the drivers that forward porting has been harder than expected... but if Eclair's source is missing, it seems the proper response is some sort of campaign to get Samsung in gear. I do think that HTC responded to GPL complaints when they had held out so long on releasing their kernel mods.
    - wmf 16y ago
      As I said elsewhere in the thread, vendors don't have to release source for drivers (kernel modules); AFAIK every Android phone uses proprietary GPU drivers at least. So even if a vendor released all the source that they're required to release, that may not be enough to create a custom ROM with a future version of Android.
metachris 16y ago
Just developing GPL software for a certain part of an embedded system doesn't necessarily require all other hardware parts to be GPL'ed as well, just as your BIOS being proprietary doesn't violate the GPL if you're running Linux. Would be great to see a fully open-source phone some day. I believe OpenMoko was striving for this goal, too.

5 ms·

> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a vi

by joeyo 16y ago

> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a violation of the GPL?

wmf 16y ago
Not if it's a driver.
- joeyo 16y ago
  Good point.
- krakensden 16y ago
  You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).
drivebyacct2 16y ago
Part of the problem is that they haven't shipped Froyo officially. But yes, manufacturers, even HTC, have been up to 6 months late delivering code as required via GPL.
- wmf 16y ago
  If Samsung release full source to their Eclair port, the community would be happy to forward-port the drivers to Froyo. But without source they can't.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Are we missing even Eclair source? I know Froyo and GB have changed things enough with some of the drivers that forward porting has been harder than expected... but if Eclair's source is missing, it seems the proper response is some sort of campaign to get Samsung in gear. I do think that HTC responded to GPL complaints when they had held out so long on releasing their kernel mods.
    - wmf 16y ago
      As I said elsewhere in the thread, vendors don't have to release source for drivers (kernel modules); AFAIK every Android phone uses proprietary GPU drivers at least. So even if a vendor released all the source that they're required to release, that may not be enough to create a custom ROM with a future version of Android.
metachris 16y ago
Just developing GPL software for a certain part of an embedded system doesn't necessarily require all other hardware parts to be GPL'ed as well, just as your BIOS being proprietary doesn't violate the GPL if you're running Linux. Would be great to see a fully open-source phone some day. I believe OpenMoko was striving for this goal, too.