[thg]

The problem is not autostart ... your absolutely right, it's trivial to fix both /etc/event.d/start-acl and /etc/event.d/start-acl-services to suppress starting ACL.

yes, I know, I had a small bash-script doing this for me, but this was "unconvenient" using it, so I hoped PIC/OM should have done it for us.

The problem is: once it's started, your not going to stop it without a reboot. You can suspend it ... that's what mount.sh does, but stopping it so that you can restart it is, at best, non-trivial!

Yes, that's what I saw too, a lot of processes and a lot of other stuff that hasto be ended and so on. Quite much work for somebody outside PIC/OM, while for them quite a simple task.

Seems to be that we have to do our own installer for ACL :-(

[cuspie]

yes, I know, I had a small bash-script doing this for me, but this was "unconvenient" using it, so I hoped PIC/OM should have done it for us.

Oh - it's much easier than that ... if you look at the Beta /etc/event.d/start-acl.sh, you will see that the script doesn't start until an opt-mounted signal is sent to upstart. All you need to do for both of these scripts is to change to a new upstart signal, for example, in /etc/event.d/start-acl

start on want-to-get-things-going

and in /etc/event.d/start-acl-services

start on wait-to-get-things-going and stopped start-acl

Then, the simple command line:

/sbin/initctl -q emit want-to-get-things-going

will start everything up.

[phxdevices]

Hello All,

During the past few months, PIC was working on the IPK with Cuspie. He put a tremendous amount of time and effort into the work to make this an exceptional product. At some point, as most of you already know OpenMobile decided that it would be in their best interest to take over the IPK and create the package themselves.

The agreement as Cuspie made reference to has always been the same: His software was only meant for a PIC packaged and delivered ACL and not an OpenMobile packaged one and any GPL licensed code must follow GPL rules. Unfortunately we are now in an awkward situation where the software has been released and he has informed us all that he sees signs this is not the case. Under the agreement OpenMobile should have implemented their own code for their own installer, and if they have failed to do so they need to correct this. We will follow up on this and hopefully it will be sorted out quickly.

Matthew Zakutny
PIC

[DMeister]

Hello All,

During the past few months, PIC was working on the IPK with Cuspie. He put a tremendous amount of time and effort into the work to make this an exceptional product. At some point, as most of you already know OpenMobile decided that it would be in their best interest to take over the IPK and create the package themselves.

The agreement as Cuspie made reference to has always been the same: His software was only meant for a PIC packaged and delivered ACL and not an OpenMobile packaged one and any GPL licensed code must follow GPL rules. Unfortunately we are now in an awkward situation where the software has been released and he has informed us all that he sees signs this is not the case. Under the agreement OpenMobile should have implemented their own code for their own installer, and if they have failed to do so they need to correct this. We will follow up on this and hopefully it will be sorted out quickly.

Matthew Zakutny
PIC

(Is been posted with this account due "phxdevices" has no many posts and the message was under moderation)

[cuspie]

Hello All,

During the past few months, PIC was working on the IPK with Cuspie. He put a tremendous amount of time and effort into the work to make this an exceptional product. At some point, as most of you already know OpenMobile decided that it would be in their best interest to take over the IPK and create the package themselves.

The agreement as Cuspie made reference to has always been the same: His software was only meant for a PIC packaged and delivered ACL and not an OpenMobile packaged one and any GPL licensed code must follow GPL rules. Unfortunately we are now in an awkward situation where the software has been released and he has informed us all that he sees signs this is not the case. Under the agreement OpenMobile should have implemented their own code for their own installer, and if they have failed to do so they need to correct this. We will follow up on this and hopefully it will be sorted out quickly.

Matthew Zakutny
PIC

Matt,

Thank you for so rapidly responding to this issue. I have always enjoyed my relationship as an investor in PIC and believed that PIC is fully committed to "doing the right thing." I am so very happy to see that confirmed again.

[John Steffes]

FYI...

With the GPL V2 kernel modules updated with the correct vermagic shortlion string, V1.0.1 works on the Touchpad Go... Also removing OpenMobiles AppMail and installing Google Market (from gingerbread) works, and SuperUser also works... So even though OpenMobile will not support the Go, it does work as the alpha did.

I am on a lunch break now, but later I will detail how I did it (FYI, I did not go thru the normal install but ripped apart their IPK to install the binary on my own (it is a shell script with a tar attached, the shell script extracts the tar files including the system.img file)... Do not have much time to decompile it and figure out all that it is doing, but it appears to install some form of Optiware not sure if it webOS Internals version or not though...

Look for an update in this thread later tonight:
http://forums.webosnation.com/hp-tou...-apps-acl.html


Due to the pull of V1.0.1 I am delaying updating the other thread, but once the final product is released I will release step by step guide on how to remove the AppMall and include the Google Market and how to root the device via SuperUser.apk.

However for those of us who have V1.0.1 it does work on the Go, and the Google Market and Root works...

[antijingoist]

Hello All,

During the past few months, PIC was working on the IPK with Cuspie. He put a tremendous amount of time and effort into the work to make this an exceptional product. At some point, as most of you already know OpenMobile decided that it would be in their best interest to take over the IPK and create the package themselves.

The agreement as Cuspie made reference to has always been the same: His software was only meant for a PIC packaged and delivered ACL and not an OpenMobile packaged one and any GPL licensed code must follow GPL rules. Unfortunately we are now in an awkward situation where the software has been released and he has informed us all that he sees signs this is not the case. Under the agreement OpenMobile should have implemented their own code for their own installer, and if they have failed to do so they need to correct this. We will follow up on this and hopefully it will be sorted out quickly.

Matthew Zakutny
PIC

(Is been posted with this account due "phxdevices" has no many posts and the message was under moderation)

Any reason why OpenMobile made this decision?

[eblade]

Don't be quick to attribute to malice that which can be just as easily explained with lack of knowledge.

I expect that we'll probably have a pretty quick resolution to this saga, well, as quick as anything moves in this community.

my 1st question is if cuspie came here first, or went to his contacts at PIC or OpenMobile first? Because while it's certainly his right to handle the situation in whatever way he sees fit, it would seem to me that it would be better to seek a resolution to the problem in private first, before raising the ire of the webOS and open source communities all at once. :-)

of course, if this actually was malicious, then i will have no choice but to echo everyone else's sentiments.

[cuspie]

Don't be quick to attribute to malice that which can be just as easily explained with lack of knowledge.

I expect that we'll probably have a pretty quick resolution to this saga, well, as quick as anything moves in this community.

my 1st question is if cuspie came here first, or went to his contacts at PIC or OpenMobile first? Because while it's certainly his right to handle the situation in whatever way he sees fit, it would seem to me that it would be better to seek a resolution to the problem in private first, before raising the ire of the webOS and open source communities all at once. :-)

of course, if this actually was malicious, then i will have no choice but to echo everyone else's sentiments.

Just to be clear, I went to my contacts at PIC first - no question about that as I have the e-mail trail as well as the telephone logs from as recently as last night. For the last week or so I have been strongly advising my contacts that if you move forward with distributing this code and if you send me notification that it has been distributed, then I would be left with no option but to determine if pieces of my beta code and design remain in their release and, if so, provide the post that I did to this forum.

[eblade]

Just to be clear, I went to my contacts at PIC first - no question about that as I have the e-mail trail as well as the telephone logs from as recently as last night. For the last week or so I have been strongly advising my contacts that if you move forward with distributing this code and if you send me notification that it has been distributed, then I would be left with no option but to determine if pieces of my beta code and design remain in their release and, if so, provide the post that I did to this forum.

Fair enough, then. And I'm sorry if you mentioned that first, I haven't slept much the last couple days, my reading comprehension is starting to fail.

[RumoredNow]

@cuspie

I'm very sorry about what has happened.

I never wanted to be that right.

[ZeroZorro]

Has this discussion (last 2 pages) anything to do with me not able to find the app in Preware and WOSQI and the link on dropbox not working?
I got my serial number in my mailbox but where to get the 1.0 version at the moment?

[cuspie]

@cuspie

I'm very sorry about what has happened.

I never wanted to be that right.

Trust me ... I could not imagine this happening considering how concerned all the parties were about Intellectual Property rights. I have no real idea how I got engaged in the middle of this, but I still have hope that the right thing can happen. I know that the PIC team is working right now to resolve these issues.

I'm not giving up, I am just really sad at this point.

[broncot]

Has this discussion (last 2 pages) anything to do with me not able to find the app in Preware and WOSQI and the link on dropbox not working?
I got my serial number in my mailbox but where to get the 1.0 version at the moment?

Rod hasn't approved it in Preware yet (and likely won't at this point), the Dropbox link isn't working, they've either pulled it temporarily or are overwhelmed by the attempts to download.

[DMeister]

Rod hasn't approved it in Preware yet (and likely won't at this point), the Dropbox link isn't working, they've either pulled it temporarily or are overwhelmed by the attempts to download.

Hey Broncot, just clean the cache of your browser and you should be able to download the file.

Dan

[jrv331]

@Dmister, is there any ballpark on public release yet?

[figgel]

hmmm, i installed acl v1.0.1, but there is no "activation" icon

[broncot]

Hey Broncot, just clean the cache of your browser and you should be able to download the file.

Dan

I can't download it in Chrome, Firefox or IE. Same 509 message.

[thg]

hmmm, i installed acl v1.0.1, but there is no "activation" icon

you have to start ACL itself, it didn't worked the first time for me, but after a reboot I got several options, including one for activating ACL. Didn't tried that right now ...

[Preemptive]

Er, I'm not sure why including GPL code in commercial products is tricky - unless it's the 'army of lawyers' thing.

I own products that contain GPL (or similar) code - not least a telephone that runs on Linux, although the OS as a whole had to be 'open sourced' by HP.

I gather Android is becoming more and more proprietary, but nonetheless, it's Linux based and the code is published.

~That aside, OM may have commercial reasons for wanting a proprietary installer, but taking someone else's code and breaching the license terms is outrageous and a slap in the face to the generous attitude that prevails in this community. I hope this turns out to (somehow?) be an error or is at least quickly resolved.

This has turned from PRPRPR $incompetence$ $to$ $a$ $textbook$ $disaster$.

Services - Software Freedom Law Center