Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 87
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by fixxxer1022 View Post
    i disagree about the custom roms not playing a part in androids huge success. custom roms are no different than what rod & company are doing by creating custom overclocked kernels that can and will void people warranties with palm.
    Please do not compare custom Android ROMz (which often contain illegal redistributions of proprietary IP, and provide the user only fixed preconfigured choices) with the Preware Homebrew Ecosystem (which is 100% legal, and provide users with fine granularity of customisations without having to reflash their whole phone).

    If you don't see the fundamental difference in the principles involved (especially the legal principles, which other groups often play fast and loose with), then you have missed the whole point of this discussion.

    -- Rod
  2. susanoo26's Avatar
    Posts
    69 Posts
    Global Posts
    89 Global Posts
    #42  
    Its so legal that it voids your warranty if you're caught with it on your phone. lol
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by susanoo26 View Post
    Its so legal that it voids your warranty if you're caught with it on your phone. lol
    It is 100% legal (custom kernels are built from GPL open source code on opensource.palm.com, which itself is a derivative of code on kernel.org). No proprietary Palm code is used or redistributed.

    It *may* void your warranty.

    There is no contradiction between those two concepts.

    -- Rod
    Last edited by rwhitby; 10/31/2010 at 04:12 PM.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by susanoo26 View Post
    1. There is no need for hackers when you have an OS that is complete out-the-box.
    Every smartphone out there has a "hacker community" so according to your reasoning none of the OS's come "complete out of the box".

    2. If having multiple form factors on multiple carries is what you call fragmentation, I'll gladly take that over the uninspired closed platform/ form factors Palm has provided us. That only works for Apple and Palm isn't in the same league as Apple.
    Fragmentation in regards to, screen size, internal components and OS versions is a major problem, you can ignore it but it will not go away. form factors aren't the only issue with fragmentation. webOS is in no way closed, you should get your facts straight before writing.
    3. Palm "supports" (and I use support loosely) the homebrew community because they have an OS is that was incomplete in terms of providing basic functionality most smartphones provide by default. you know things like timestamping messages?
    The fact there is even such a strong homebrew community is a testament to the weakness of the out-of-the-box webOS. I've even read people saying they can't wait to patch webOS2.0.
    Again get your facts straight, you can use the word "supports" as loosely as you want. You cannot however show me any OS out their that gets the lead homebrew dev, to talk at a dev day. and repeating what i said in step 1, "Every smartphone out there has a "hacker community" so according to your reasoning none of the OS's come "complete out of the box".

    "

    4. I wouldn't call 0% mindshare standing strong. As far as HP not letting webOS die, I guess we'll have to see. The Pre2 isn't a good start.

    "without illegal porting that can damage dev relations"......what dev relations? Lol
    mindshare is keeping steady at close to 5% so again get your facts straight, and you again show your obvious lack of knowledge regarding the dev relations to the homebrew community.

    in short GO TROLL ELSEWHERE
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by susanoo26 View Post
    Its so legal that it voids your warranty if you're caught with it on your phone. lol
    You obviously don't understand the difference between voiding a warranty and doing some thing illegal. just to make it easy on you i will give an example.

    buying a PC and overclocking it, will void your warranty, nothing illegal but the Man. says dont do it.

    stealing a PC from Best Buy and overclocking it is a little different.
  6. Helidos's Avatar
    Posts
    791 Posts
    Global Posts
    810 Global Posts
    #46  
    Can someone explain the End User License Agreement then..

    NO ASSIGNMENT; NO REVERSE ENGINEERING: You may transfer the Software to another party if such party accepts the terms and conditions of this License Agreement in writing. If you transfer the Software, you must at the same time either transfer all copies of the Software as well as the supporting documentation to the same party or destroy any such materials not transferred.

    Modification, reverse engineering, reverse compiling, or disassembly of the Software is expressly prohibited.
    The one that came with my pre says basically the same thing...

    You may not modify or alter the software in any way, and may only use the software as expressly set forth above. You agree that you will not attempt to, or assist or encourage any other person or entity to circumvent, disable or modify any security technology or software that is part of the software or is used on your palm device. etc etc
    Doesn't both of those cover half of what is in preware (patches, kernels, themes) and the assist part pretty much covers preware.

    I would honestly like to know.
    Last edited by helidos; 10/31/2010 at 04:11 PM.
  7. Helidos's Avatar
    Posts
    791 Posts
    Global Posts
    810 Global Posts
    #47  
    Another question for rod..

    Is it safe to assume that the code used in the UI of webos proprietary? If so each patch file includes that code so doesn't that count as used or redistributed?
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by helidos View Post
    Another question for rod..

    Is it safe to assume that the code used in the UI of webos proprietary? If so each patch file includes that code so doesn't that count as used or redistributed?
    the patch doesn't include the file only the changes/editions needed.
  9. Helidos's Avatar
    Posts
    791 Posts
    Global Posts
    810 Global Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by abegee View Post
    the patch doesn't include the file only the changes/editions needed.
    Well patches that remove certain code and replace it with user created code includes the code that needs to be removed line by line which counts as redistributed.

    Also help me understand what I posted in my other post....
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by helidos View Post
    Well patches that remove certain code and replace it with user created code includes the code that needs to be removed line by line which counts as redistributed.

    Also help me understand what I posted in my other post....
    I believe it includes the line numbers not the actual code
  11. Helidos's Avatar
    Posts
    791 Posts
    Global Posts
    810 Global Posts
    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by abegee View Post
    I believe it includes the line numbers not the actual code
    While ssh'd into a pre that's suspended, powerd spams all users with messages
    every second or so. This patch silences those.

    Index: /usr/sbin/suspend_action
    ===================================================================
    --- .orig/usr/sbin/suspend_action
    +++ /usr/sbin/suspend_action
    @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
    #!/bin/sh

    -echo -e "powerd: System going to sleep now\n" | wall <--- stock palm code to be removed
    +# echo -e "powerd: System going to sleep now\n" | wall <--- user modifiyed code to be added

    # Initiate suspend
    echo mem > /sys/power/state

    -echo -e "powerd: System woke up.\n" | wall <--- stock palm code to be removed
    +# echo -e "powerd: System woke up.\n" | wall <--- user modifiyed code to be added


    Just want to know whats the difference here if the ui code is part of Palm's proprietary code then its being redistributed...
  12. #52  
    The whole port is a moot point. At this point, it's basically one guy trying and failing to cross-compile a kernel.
  13. #53  
    It nice to see XDA finally jumping on a port to another device and I have no doubts they will get it done(although its going to be a slow progression on MSM7K tech) but they should have done this a long time ago on the Omap based devices. I would have offered some help to them but cant risk any legal backlash. I still have unanswered questions in my PM asking for my beagle-build but since it patched binary blobs I could not respond

    Maybe a video would be neat to show but seriously at this point its a lost cause and takes too much time on non-Omap. MSM7K is way too Proprietary and most of the XDA guys I worked with over the years use out-dated leaked sheets. Gonna be damn tough but i'm anxious to see how they proceed.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by abegee View Post
    mindshare is keeping steady at close to 5%
    Just a small correction. Mindshare is actually 0%. Market share however, is holding at 4.9%
  15. giggles's Avatar
    Posts
    677 Posts
    Global Posts
    690 Global Posts
    #55  
    I dont want android running webos we need to horde what we got.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by helidos View Post
    Well patches that remove certain code and replace it with user created code includes the code that needs to be removed line by line which counts as redistributed.

    Also help me understand what I posted in my other post....
    We believe that the quoted code in patches falls under the doctrine of fair-use: U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (we consider it justifiable under all four factors used to judge applicability of that doctrine).

    Note that at the start of the webOS homebrew community some people were distributing modified complete webOS files, and Palm specifically requested that to be stopped. Discussions with Palm resulted in patches being chosen by WebOS Internals as the distribution mechanism for homebrew modifications.

    With regard to your question about reverse engineering in your other post, we believe that the study of the internals of webOS for the purpose of homebrew interoperability is allowed by law in most jurisdictions. For example, in Australia, the law states:

    "A computer program may be reproduced or adapted in order to get information necessary to enable an interoperable product to be made. The relevant provision also allows the person making the interoperable product to reproduce or adapt the original program in the interoperable product, but only to the extent necessary to enable interoperability either with that program or any other program."

    My understanding is that there are similar provisions in the USA (note that I'm an Australian citizen, not a US citizen).

    Note that Palm has not employed any technologies to prevent access to webOS internals (e.g. an encrypted webOS Doctor or a bootloader that only executes signed webOS images), but even if they did, there is a specific provision in the DMCA which allows an exception for reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability:

    "(f) Reverse Engineering. -
    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
    (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
    (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged."

    These are the principles upon which WebOS Internals acts, and the final arbiter of our actions would be Palm's legal department. In fact, I asked one of the senior managers at Palm very early on in the history of WebOS Internals about Palm's legal view of what WebOS Internals is doing, and his response was "If we had a problem with it, you would have got a Cease and Desist letter by now". Rather than sending me a Cease and Desist letter, Palm has invited me to give a 1 hour presentation about WebOS Internals at the upcoming NYC Developer Day. Actions speak louder than words.

    Now, I am not a lawyer. No-one should take the contents of this post as a legal opinion. If you are truly concerned about the legal ramifications you should contact your own lawyer.

    Debating fine points of the law on an end-user forum is never productive, and I will not be entering into such a discussion (I'd rather spend my limited spare time improving homebrew applications and kernels). It is even less productive when the participants in the discussion do not share a common legal jurisdiction.

    So this will probably be my last post in this thread (which has gotten way off-topic) until the developer group that is attempting this port (which they now say will be done without redistributing proprietary webOS files, so the legal point seems moot if they uphold that decision) needs any assistance further than the instructions for the first steps of compiling kernels and device drivers that I have provided already.

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  17. Helidos's Avatar
    Posts
    791 Posts
    Global Posts
    810 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    We believe that the quoted code in patches falls under the doctrine of fair-use: U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (we consider it justifiable under all four factors used to judge applicability of that doctrine).

    Note that at the start of the webOS homebrew community some people were distributing modified complete webOS files, and Palm specifically requested that to be stopped. Discussions with Palm resulted in patches being chosen by WebOS Internals as the distribution mechanism for homebrew modifications.

    With regard to your question about reverse engineering in your other post, we believe that the study of the internals of webOS for the purpose of homebrew interoperability is allowed by law in most jurisdictions. For example, in Australia, the law states:

    "A computer program may be reproduced or adapted in order to get information necessary to enable an interoperable product to be made. The relevant provision also allows the person making the interoperable product to reproduce or adapt the original program in the interoperable product, but only to the extent necessary to enable interoperability either with that program or any other program."

    My understanding is that there are similar provisions in the USA (note that I'm an Australian citizen, not a US citizen).

    Note that Palm has not employed any technologies to prevent access to webOS internals (e.g. an encrypted webOS Doctor or a bootloader that only executes signed webOS images), but even if they did, there is a specific provision in the DMCA which allows an exception for reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability:

    "(f) Reverse Engineering. -
    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
    (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
    (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged."

    These are the principles upon which WebOS Internals acts, and the final arbiter of our actions would be Palm's legal department. In fact, I asked one of the senior managers at Palm very early on in the history of WebOS Internals about Palm's legal view of what WebOS Internals is doing, and his response was "If we had a problem with it, you would have got a Cease and Desist letter by now". Rather than sending me a Cease and Desist letter, Palm has invited me to give a 1 hour presentation about WebOS Internals at the upcoming NYC Developer Day. Actions speak louder than words.

    Now, I am not a lawyer. No-one should take the contents of this post as a legal opinion. If you are truly concerned about the legal ramifications you should contact your own lawyer.

    Debating fine points of the law on an end-user forum is never productive, and I will not be entering into such a discussion (I'd rather spend my limited spare time improving homebrew applications and kernels). It is even less productive when the participants in the discussion do not share a common legal jurisdiction.

    So this will probably be my last post in this thread (which has gotten way off-topic) until the developer group that is attempting this port (which they now say will be done without redistributing proprietary webOS files, so the legal point seems moot if they uphold that decision) needs any assistance further than the instructions for the first steps of compiling kernels and device drivers that I have provided already.

    -- Rod
    Thank You for the response Rod...
  18. #58  
    recently XDA is attempting webOS on a totally new phone with a new OS as well..

    the specs of the palm pre and the sprint htc hero (android) are really simular

    what would happen if webOS came on a android phone

    Well webOS is being ported to an android phone with a touch screen keyboard of course and also the ability to dual boot between android and webOS(personally i loved webOS the palm pre was my first phone and i will always love it ...only had it for 3 days cuz sprint applications failed...) now i was thinking of getting one on my bday jan 31... but now i might not have to webOS on a totally new phone how amazing will it be? XDA always ports things to phone but to me this is proublly the best thing ever... webOS my favorite mobile operating system that i love more than the the iphone

    Well anyways what do you guys think?
    Android and Palm together
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by shyam101 View Post
    recently XDA is attempting webOS on a totally new phone with a new OS as well..

    the specs of the palm pre and the sprint htc hero (android) are really simular

    what would happen if webOS came on a android phone

    Well webOS is being ported to an android phone with a touch screen keyboard of course and also the ability to dual boot between android and webOS(personally i loved webOS the palm pre was my first phone and i will always love it ...only had it for 3 days cuz sprint applications failed...) now i was thinking of getting one on my bday jan 31... but now i might not have to webOS on a totally new phone how amazing will it be? XDA always ports things to phone but to me this is proublly the best thing ever... webOS my favorite mobile operating system that i love more than the the iphone

    Well anyways what do you guys think?
    Android and Palm together
    This has been beaten to death since the port began last week... Most here are not enthused... Including myself

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums Beta
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by sketch42 View Post
    This has been beaten to death since the port began last week... Most here are not enthused... Including myself

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using [url= Beta[/url]
    Now, if they were porting it to something like the EVO, that would be completely different! Why put webOS on even worse hardware (Hero) than the Pre Minus?
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions