Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 149
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhoff80 View Post
    All submissions to webOS Internals are licensed as open source though. Maybe some people haven't read it prior to submission, but by adding or editing a webOS Internals page, as I mentioned before, you're agreeing to it.
    I've never added my patches to the wiki.
  2. #42  
    Btw, we're talking about the principle of stealing software that has been posted on PreCentral, not webos-internals.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Btw, we're talking about the principle of stealing software that has been posted on PreCentral, not webos-internals.
    Has anybody done this even or is it just theoretical? From what I can see in Preware, didn't you upload your patch yourself? I think most of the patches that are out there are on webOS Internals, and the ones that aren't, haven't been submitted.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Btw, we're talking about the principle of stealing software that has been posted on PreCentral, not webos-internals.
    You are correct that posting something to PreCentral does not make it open source.

    Posting something to the WebOS Internals wiki definitely does make it open source (that is stated explicitly).

    Submitting something to the modifications.git repo on gitorious definitely does make it specifically MIT License open source (that is stated explicitly).

    If someone has taken a patch from you that is not open source, and submitted it via one of those means without your consent, then you should request that it be removed (we will do so immediately), and take it up further with the person who submitted it.

    -- 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
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Please don't submit other people's patches. Just because a patch is posted and shared freely on a website doesn't suddenly make it open source and the author doesn't give up copyright. While the author is unlikely to object to the help, he or she has the exclusive right to decide how to distribute his or her patches and how they might be modified.
    Sorry to jump in here.. but was this directed at me?

    I was fixing a patch that hadn't been fixed for about 20 days.. helping out the community. I never said the original author had to be removed, and have even submitted the original persons name as well as mine.
    Last edited by daventx; 10/23/2009 at 06:40 PM.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhoff80 View Post
    Has anybody done this even or is it just theoretical? From what I can see in Preware, didn't you upload your patch yourself? I think most of the patches that are out there are on webOS Internals, and the ones that aren't, haven't been submitted.
    Not sure if it's been done. I saw Craig's warning not to upload software written by other people and posted here, and dBsooner's declaration that he will ignore copyright.

    As for my patches, Eric packaged one at my request. And he advised me to use git to upload the other one to my account at gitorious. dBsooner then copied the patch at my request.

    To be clear, webos-internals is distributing my patches with my permission. Where I disagree with dBsooner is whether webos-internals has the right to distribute them without my permission.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    You are correct that posting something to PreCentral does not make it open source.

    Posting something to the WebOS Internals wiki definitely does make it open source (that is stated explicitly).

    Submitting something to the modifications.git repo on gitorious definitely does make it specifically MIT License open source (that is stated explicitly).

    If someone has taken a patch from you that is not open source, and submitted it via one of those means without your consent, then you should request that it be removed (we will do so immediately), and take it up further with the person who submitted it.

    -- Rod
    I haven't submitted my patches to the wiki or to the modifications.git repo.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by daventx View Post
    Sorry to jump in here.. but was this directed at me?

    I was fixing a patch that hadn't been fixed for about 20 days.. helping out the community. I never said the original author had to be removed, and have even submitted the original persons name as well as mine.
    No, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was responding to dBsooner's response to Milominderbinder. I don't know what patches you fixed or what the licenses on them are.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I haven't submitted my patches to the wiki or to the modifications.git repo.
    When you asked me to package it up, I added it to the modifications.git repo. Would you like me to remove it or are you fine with distributing it under MIT License?

    -Eric G

    WebOS Internals Developer.
    Follow me on Twitter for updates to my projects: | Virtual Keyboard | wIRC | SuperTux | AUPT | KeyBoss | freeTether |

    Donate
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by emoney_33 View Post
    When you asked me to package it up, I added it to the modifications.git repo. Would you like me to remove it or are you fine with distributing it under MIT License?
    Not sure. Let me follow up with you offline.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    To be clear, webos-internals is distributing my patches with my permission. Where I disagree with dBsooner is whether webos-internals has the right to distribute them without my permission.
    WebOS Internals does not distribute any software without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    If you submit a patch to the WebOS Internals wiki, you are explicitly giving that permission as per the notice on that site.

    If you submit a patch to the gitorious.org modifications.git repo, you are explicitly giving that permission as per the notice on that site.

    If a patch reaches us through some other means, and we do not have the permission of the original author of the patch, it will be removed from all webos-internals sites and feeds at the request of the author immediately.

    If you post a patch on PreCentral forums, you need to explicitly state the licensing under which you are submitting that patch. By default, it is copyright to the original author, and no-one can redistribute it anywhere without the original author's explicit permission.

    It seems that http://www.dbtrunk.com/webospatchupload.php does not specify the license under which the patch is submitted. That will be corrected to explicitly require submissions are licensed with the MIT Open Source License (so that Palm can use the patches as-is to incorporate them into webOS) and that the submitter explicitly agrees that they are either the original author of the patch or have the right to submit the patch under that license.

    We will contact the submitters of any patches that have been submitted so far via http://www.dbtrunk.com/webospatchupload.php and clarify the licensing.

    If any author has any concerns about redistribution of software by WebOS Internals in any form, please contact me directly and I can assure you that it will be dealt with swiftly.

    -- Rod
    Last edited by rwhitby; 10/23/2009 at 07:16 PM.
    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
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by dBsooner View Post
    I am sorry, but I have to disagree here. Patching is 99% open source and even the forum submission form tells you it can and will get used however.

    If you don't want your patch in the webOS-Patches feed, then i would explicitly state that in your original post where the patch file is discussed.

    I highly object to someone wanting to "close source" or "not redistribute" a patch file. It is all open source, that is the point of it. Share and share alike. Make things better and share back.
    Even though we always try and convince authors of the benefit of open source licensing, it is copyright law (the same law that open source licenses are based on) which states that the original author has full control over the licensing and redistribution of their works, and webos-internals.org will always respect the author's intentions with regard to licensing.

    Now, I strongly advise any patch authors to use an MIT Open Source License (which incidently requires that their copyright is never removed, so they remain identified as the original author forever) so that Palm can take the patch and incorporate it into a future webOS release.

    A patch which is not explicitly licensed in a way that allows incorporation into a commercial closed-source product (e.g. webOS) cannot be used by Palm. A patch which has no licensing specified at all cannot be used by Palm.

    This is the reason why all avenues for submission that are under the direct control of webos-internals.org require that patches are licensed using the MIT Open Source License, which allows anyone to review the patch source code for security evaluation, and also allows Palm to incorporate the patch directly into a future version of webOS if they choose.

    We recommend that any future alternative patch submission avenues follow the same process, and we strongly advise authors to license their patches in that way.

    However, if an author wishes to produce a closed source patch, that is their right and we will respect their copyright.

    Such a closed source patch will not be included in the webos-patches feed which is used by WebOS Quick Install and Preware and PreLoad, for the reasons I have stated above, but the author has every right to distribute it themselves by any means they choose.

    Note that the AutoPatch technology used in the packaging of patches for the webos-patches feed is GPL licensed, which means that closed source patch authors cannot use it to produce patches that are compatible with the Emergency Patch Recover tool.

    Also note that combining an MIT Open Source licensed patch with GPL Open Source licensed AutoPatch technology into an ipkg file does not change the MIT licensing of the original patch file (so Palm can still use it as they please), but does ensure the free redistribution of the ipkg file which contains the patch.

    -- 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
  13. #53  
    I want to say that I was just asking for clarification.

    I am very happy to have seen the discussion.

    So patches posted on PreCentral that are not in webos-internals are not MIT license unless P|C had a stated policy that all patches posted here were MIT?

    - Craig
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    Note that the AutoPatch technology used in the packaging of patches for the webos-patches feed is GPL licensed, which means that closed source patch authors cannot use it to produce patches that are compatible with the Emergency Patch Recover tool.
    What about my direct .patch/.diff installation in WebOSQuickInstall? I mean this in a genuinely curious manner: there wouldn't be any legalities surrounding installing a closed source patch with WebOSQuickInstall, would there? Cause that would allow EPR-compatabile patch installation without using the autopatch system

    Quote Originally Posted by Milominderbinder View Post
    So patches posted on PreCentral that are not in webos-internals are not MIT license unless P|C had a stated policy that all patches posted here were MIT?
    As far as I understand, the patches uploaded to PreCentral forums are copyright their authors and assumed closed source. I could definitely be wrong though, but it makes sense.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Robitaille View Post
    What about my direct .patch/.diff installation in WebOSQuickInstall? I mean this in a genuinely curious manner: there wouldn't be any legalities surrounding installing a closed source patch with WebOSQuickInstall, would there? Cause that would allow EPR-compatabile patch installation without using the autopatch system
    Since the result of combining the WebOS Quick Install'ed patch with the AutoPatch technology is not distributed, then the fact that the resulting installation may be GPL licensed (depending on what code was or wasn't used) is not a problem.

    WebOS Internals (and specifically Eric Gaudet, who is the original author of the GPL'd AutoPatch code) has granted Canuck Software the right to use the technology for this purpose in WebOS Quick Install (a closed source product) in order to ensure the interoperability of patches within the homebrew ecosystem and make things easier for the end users.

    As far as I understand, the patches uploaded to PreCentral forums are copyright their authors and assumed closed source. I could definitely be wrong though, but it makes sense.
    That is correct. Unless PreCentral requires people to consent to a certain licensing (as we do for webos-internals.org wiki submissions or gitorious.org modifications.git commits), then the copyright is held by the author and all rights are reserved by default.

    -- 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
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Milominderbinder View Post
    So patches posted on PreCentral that are not in webos-internals are not MIT license unless P|C had a stated policy that all patches posted here were MIT?
    Correct. And the lack of such a policy means that Palm cannot use any such patches to make webOS better for all of us in the future.

    -- 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.    #57  
    I would like to clarify to everyone involved. I NEVER stated I would ignore copyright. That is an assumption that samkim made. It is possible he misunderstood what I had stated.

    I will quote my original statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by dBsooner
    I feel it should be the responsibility of the developer to submit. That being said, I would say it would be ok to go ahead and submit it on behalf of the developer if a reasonable attempt had been made to get the dev to upload with no luck.

    If one is submitted on behalf, you must put a "Note to admins" saying who you are and that you submitted on behalf of.
    I failed to mention specific information in that post. I should have clarified that only patches readily available on the webOS-Internals wiki should be submitted on behalf of, given the original author of the page was the developer of the patch. Any patches solely posted to precentral.net ARE NOT automatically considered Open Source and should only be submitted by the original developer, or developers of modifications to the original with the consent of the original developer.

    I would like to state as a member of webOS-Internals Development Group that I am in complete agreement of their policies. I honor all licenses, though I might not agree with all of them. Not agreeing is a personal opinion that I am entitled to. However, I will still honor the license.
    dBsooner
    WebOS-Internals Member and Developer
    Donations Appreciated!

    Keep up to date with webOS-Patches via Twitter: @dBsooner

    Browse Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal - (Trac)
    Submit New Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
    Submit Updated Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
  18. #58  
    These are the relevant quotes:
    If you don't want your patch in the webOS-Patches feed, then i would explicitly state that in your original post where the patch file is discussed.
    Since the wiki doesn't have much of a discussion going on for each patch, I "assumed" that you were talking about the PreCentral threads, and that you felt free to take any software unless authors specifically opted out.

    I highly object to someone wanting to "close source" or "not redistribute" a patch file. It is all open source, that is the point of it.
    When you said, "it is all open source," I thought that you were declaring that all patches were open source. From your latest post, it sounds like you still think all patches should be open source, but that you will comply with the law despite your beliefs. Am I still misinterpreting you?
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Not sure. Let me follow up with you offline.
    samkim, I would like to mention if you do not agree to it being licensed under the MIT Open Source License, then the webOS-Patches feed will not be able to distribute it. We will remove it from the feed if you do not agree. This is not a ploy, it is simply how the webOS-Patches GPL is setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    It seems that dBsooner's webOS-Patches Submission Form does not specify the license under which the patch is submitted. That will be corrected to explicitly require submissions are licensed with the MIT Open Source License (so that Palm can use the patches as-is to incorporate them into webOS) and that the submitter explicitly agrees that they are either the original author of the patch or have the right to submit the patch under that license.

    We will contact the submitters of any patches that have been submitted so far via dBsooner's webOS-Patches Submission Form and clarify the licensing.
    As of 0430 UTC Oct 25, 2009 the webOS-Patch Upload script contains a statement that the person submitting the form agrees the patch is licensed under the MIT Open Source License.

    I will contact all the submitters prior to that time to get their consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    However, if an author wishes to produce a closed source patch, that is their right and we will respect their copyright.

    Such a closed source patch will not be included in the webos-patches feed which is used by WebOS Quick Install and Preware and PreLoad, for the reasons I have stated above, but the author has every right to distribute it themselves by any means they choose.

    Note that the AutoPatch technology used in the packaging of patches for the webos-patches feed is GPL licensed, which means that closed source patch authors cannot use it to produce patches that are compatible with the Emergency Patch Recover tool.

    Also note that combining an MIT Open Source licensed patch with GPL Open Source licensed AutoPatch technology into an ipkg file does not change the MIT licensing of the original patch file (so Palm can still use it as they please), but does ensure the free redistribution of the ipkg file which contains the patch.

    -- Rod
    Thank you for all this clarification. I apologize for not consulting you regarding the specific licensing. I have updated the OP and the webOS-Patches Upload form to include information regarding the licensing of any patches submitted. I have included a link to the webOS-Internals wiki where I created a page with the exact license and all information partaining to it and patches.

    The page can be viewed at: MIT Open Source License - webOS-Patches - WebOS Internals
    dBsooner
    WebOS-Internals Member and Developer
    Donations Appreciated!

    Keep up to date with webOS-Patches via Twitter: @dBsooner

    Browse Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal - (Trac)
    Submit New Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
    Submit Updated Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
  20. #60  
    we just want some patches not so much trouble lol
    ĦṔ-Ḷṫ-Ŧḯη
    Here is a direct link to webOS Doc for all carriers
    http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/...octor_Versions
    P.S. if i have helped you and you are thankful please hit the thanks button to the right---->
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions