Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HTC Finally Releases Hero Source Code

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the shouldn't-heroes-be-more-forthcoming? dept.

Cellphones 123

An anonymous reader writes "After months of prodding by developers, HTC has finally released the long-requested Android source code for the HTC Hero. This follows up on a recent report on Slashdot concerning device manufacturer HTC's perceived stonewalling over releasing source code for the device after repeated attempts to initially obtain source were met with vague responses."

cancel ×

123 comments

HTC (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841415)

It's great HTC started releasing Android phones too, their Windows Mobile phones have been really nice (with their own tweaks and UI redesign to make it more useful)

Anyone know what kind of custom stuff they're build for Android?

Re:HTC (5, Informative)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841469)

Anyone know what kind of custom stuff they're build for Android?

Sense UI and a few applications. Nothing spectacular, android steals all the glory. In fact, don't waste your time on the HTC Hero.. wait another week and get the Samsung Moment. Faster proc, onscreen keyboard and physical keyboard, better battery life.

I love my HTC Hero but boy is it slow at times. And I'm not just talking about waiting for an app to load, there are times when the entire device just decides to freeze up for 2-3 seconds while queuing input.

aEN

Re:HTC (5, Informative)

delire (809063) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841601)

Sounds like you need to upgrade the firmware [gizmodo.com] ..

People are reporting huge speedups after doing so.

Re:HTC (1)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842185)

yea except sprint phones already ship with the upgraded firmware.

aEN

Re:HTC (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844927)

No, they don't. Sprint phones ship with 1.5 (Cupcake). We are waiting for 1.6 (Donut) to be released for the device.

Re:HTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842803)

Bah, stop calling software for phones firmware! It is software not firmware!

Re:HTC (2, Funny)

eihab (823648) | more than 4 years ago | (#29841739)

I love my HTC Hero but boy is it slow at times. And I'm not just talking about waiting for an app to load, there are times when the entire device just decides to freeze up for 2-3 seconds while queuing input.

Give it a second, It's going to space! [youtube.com] [1:30]

Re:HTC (1)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844523)

Wow, thanks for that link, that clip is hilarious.

Re:HTC (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842645)

wait another week and get the Samsung Moment.

Damn my impatience! I waited a moment and ended up with the Samsung Week.

Re:HTC (2, Interesting)

atamido (1020905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842845)

I love my HTC Hero but boy is it slow at times. And I'm not just talking about waiting for an app to load, there are times when the entire device just decides to freeze up for 2-3 seconds while queuing input.

Sounds like my iPhone 3G. From the initial 2 firmware to the current 3, there are constant multi-second pauses. Heck, just unlocking it can sometimes take close to 10 seconds. And yes, I've had my phone replaced so I know it's not the hardware. And I reboot it regularly. It's a great device, but a mediocre phone.

Re:HTC (1)

timmattison (1662553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842847)

Agreed. I got all the way through the ordering the Hero when I noticed an advertisement for the Samsung Moment pre-order on Sprint. The Moment has a real keyboard, faster processor, but only a 3.2MP camera instead of the Hero's 5.0MP camera. Personally I don't care about the camera and the fact that they're going to be the same price really put the nail in the coffin on the Hero for me.

Then again, supposedly I can use my old SERO plan on the Hero but not on the Moment. That would be a reverse-deal-breaker. :P

Re:HTC (1)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843165)

ok two things.

1) the 3.2MP camera has a flash, the hero lacks it and you end up with a lot of blurry useless pics. i will never buy a phone without a flash again. and yes i take pictures with my phone, they take perfect for-facebook pics

2) you can use your old sero plan, as long as you have unlimited internet otherwise you'll have high bills and the customer reps will laugh at you. however you should not buy your phones in the store, they are trained to make sure you have everything plans. this is where the clueless monkies at best buy come into play. tell them you have an everything plan and they will continue on like there is no problem. however consider their current everything deal. $70 (after taxes) = unlimited text, data (including tethering), calls to any mobile phone, and 450 daytime minutes for google voice. can you complain?

aEN

Re:HTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29843297)

Actually there are several ways to improve the performance.
a) If you are on a european HERO upgrade to the latest firmware
b) Get App Killer, Android does not terminate running applications they have to do it themselves
c) Adding a decent swap partition also helps tremendously (on phones which are rooted)

in many cases b) is the cause for the biggest slowdowns.

Re:HTC (1)

anti-pop-frustration (814358) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843431)

don't waste your time on the HTC Hero.. wait another week

Or better yet, wait a few more weeks and get an Andoird 1.6 phone, with a WVGA (800x480) display.

I'm fed up with all smartphones using 480x320, that's one area where the iphone did hurt the market: it set a low standard for display resolution. Japanese manufacturers (Sharp etc.) have been releasing phones with FWVGA (854 x 480) displays for a few years now, I really don't understand why the western market has been lagging behind all this time.

Re:HTC (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843481)

Well before rushing out buying the Samsung wait for the first user reports, the first android Samsung got raving reviews by websites but was flamed to death after a few weeks in the android forums and many reverted back to HTC selling the Samsung phone, the reasons simply were bugs in the drivers (Samsung uses slightly different hardware than htc) and hardware glitches which manifested itself over a few weeks of usage (Stuck buttons, no multitouch, lost calls etc...).
Also if you already have an Android phone, I would not buy any phone yet, in a few months the first NVidia tegra based phones will hit the market, then things will become really interesting especially with OpenGL SE which will be part of android then (if it not already is), I assume mid next year or so and then it will definitely a good time to upgrade. For now it is neither fish nor flesh. The first generation of android phones is out, most vendors still are on their first iteration hardware (htc is on the bugfixed third iteration of their first gen which is just an indication that the OS has gotten serious optimizations over the last year) and there are still quirks to debugged out by every vendor.

The main problem is that most phone manufacturers simply relied on the promises of Microsoft to deliver something which can match the iPhone with winmo 6.5 and basically got a rude awakening several months ago, when Microsoft (again) just made empty promises so they are all jumped onto Android relatively late. Anyway better late than never. But all of this is reason enough to wait a few weeks to see which bugs still are there and which are fixed, especially with the Samsung phones. (Samsung already made a new firmware which fixed several bugs in their first gen phone, but others still persist)
Anyway, I still would recommend, before rushing out and buying a Samsung or Motorola, wait another few weeks until the serious user reports hit the forums then you can start (usually 2 weeks after the phone has been released the user reports become serious and show all flaws and weaknesses)

Re:HTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29841507)

I don't know, but I hope it includes a grammar checker!

If I told you, I'd have to kill you ... (0, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842523)

If you promise not to tell anyone, I'll let you in on this secret source of information [google.com] .

Not so bad... (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841525)

I'm assuming good faith, but personally, I'm not concerned that it took so long to release the source code. Most likely, the developers were under a deadline to have the phone in working order, and had to postpone lower-priority tasks to meet that deadline. These lower-priority tasks were probably such trivial things as comments, changed names, formatting, and all those other bits that get neglected under heavy pressure.

Re:Not so bad... (5, Insightful)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841597)

I've been in situations that appear like this in companies before. Usually it is stage fright, the developers know they took outrageous short cuts to meet schedules, and don't want to publish it until SP1, when they have had time to remove the hacks and crap. These are the good guys. One company I worked for thought that the source was harder to understand than the (disassembled) binary; they had a point.

Sometimes I wonder how much of a role of embarrassment plays in the decision to keep the source code private. Happy Launch Day Windows 7!

Re:Not so bad... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842963)

The GPL requires the release of the source as used to build the binaries. If the source code has been modified (no matter what has been done to it), its a GPL violation.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844309)

The GPL requires the release of "the preferred form for making modifications" to a work. So if you have some code that you work on and you use an obfuscator on it then compile that you have to release the original code, not the obfuscated stuff.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844719)

Thanks for saying that, it saves me pointing it out. The "tidying up" argument is total, utter bullshit. You must release or make available the code used to make the binary. It's not optional, and releasing some similar, sanitised code at a later date is not sufficient. If you're not ready to release the source, you're not ready to distribute the binary.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

feitingen (889125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843023)

Sometimes I wonder how much of a role of embarrassment plays in the decision to keep the source code private.

This is usually the biggest concern for me when i develop something, if its something i am proud of and can release freely, then it's gonna be GPLed, if i am embarrased of it, i'm not going to release it, unless people email me about it and promise to not mention me.

Re:Not so bad... (4, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841681)

I'm assuming good faith, but personally, I'm not concerned that it took so long to release the source code. Most likely, the developers ... had to postpone lower-priority tasks to meet that deadline.

You think that meeting legal requirements is a low priority task? And that pirating free software goes with good faith?

Re:Not so bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29841711)

yes

Re:Not so bad... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29841873)

Sometimes to coders, legal requirements is a lower task than creating a quality product.

Re:Not so bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29843691)

These are not a group of coders in a basement we are talking about, but a large company. They surely have a legal department, for whom legal requirements is the only priority.

Re:Not so bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842201)

wah wah wah

It's not pirating if the intent is good (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842577)

You think that meeting legal requirements is a low priority task?

That depends on who might sue you. Certainly to technical people it would generally be a low priority, and even to business managers anxious to get something out in the market and revenue going. The company lawyers don't win every battle you know.

And that pirating free software goes with good faith?

It's not pirating if the intent is to comply. Just like it's not really pirating if you truly download media with intent to review.

In other words, cut people some slack - generally they mean well, and in this case specifically they obviously meant well since they complied fully.

Re:It's not pirating if the intent is good (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842979)

There is also often some conflicting issues vis a vis who may sue you.
One notable example was the kernel for one of the Motorola EZX linux phones. This kernel contained a driver to support SD memory cards (the phone has a MicroSD slot like many other phones these days do) built into it (and not as a module). Motorola released kernel source for this phone that was missing the SD card driver because the negative outcome of being sued by the SD card association for violating the SD card NDA/license (which may well have meant Motorola being unable to use the SD card spec in future products) was deemed by the lawyers to be MUCH bigger than the negative outcome of not releasing the SD card driver code.

What eventually happened is that the SD card association (at the urging of Motorola and others) released a cut-down version of the specs dealing with the bits kernel drivers would need to deal with, allowing Motorola to release the source in question.

Re:It's not pirating if the intent is good (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844263)

Motorola released kernel source for this phone that was missing the SD card driver because the negative outcome of being sued by the SD card association for violating the SD card NDA/license (which may well have meant Motorola being unable to use the SD card spec in future products) was deemed by the lawyers to be MUCH bigger than the negative outcome of not releasing the SD card driver code.

I never understood how a such a decision could be reached.

On one hand, they could choose the situation where they release the SD driver and get sued by the SD association.
At that point they can't legally use SD technology, but can still release their phone!

On the other hand, violating the GPL, sure they will be allowed to use SD technology in the future, just not ship any product.
A phone without firmware still can't use the SD card, nor do anything else, including boot!
When you are legally barred from distributing your firmware (GPL was revoked in this decision), then it is still not possible to use the SD slot, since the driver requires a kernel to load it to work which they can't distribute.

I can't see how a non-booting phone with a non-working SD slot is a better option than a working phone with a non-working SD slot.

lawyers *rolls eyes*

Re:It's not pirating if the intent is good (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844413)

Except that they released the phone anyway and violated the GPL in the process (releasing the code for everything except the SD car driver)

Re:Not so bad... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842951)

I think it's not so much that the "legal product" aspect is low priority, but as mentioned above, simply pushed too far back. There is a fair amount work involved in preparing source code for public release. It has to be retrieved from wherever it's stored (which may be distributed), cleaned of any sensitive information, separated from what isn't going to be released (data files, compilation scripts, etc.), packaged, and finally placed in a public location. I simply doubt that with all the pressure involved in a project like this, that process was a high priority. The fact is that 90% or more of the target market doesn't care about the source, but they would care about having the release date pushed back.

Re:Not so bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29843513)

please please PLEASE don't call that pirating. Just as downloading something shouldn't be made worse by using a scary name, so shouldn't license violations.

Yes, they should've complied right from the start. Yes, GPL violations are very bad.

But don't go calling them pirates, if you do you're no better than the MAFIAAs.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844393)

It was never a "legal requirement". It's Apache licenced, so changes to the original (available) Android source don't have to be added back in. It's to encourage commercial devs to develop "exclusives" like the HTC Sense features. Noncommercials are free to release the source on their modifications, but it's not an obligation.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

brainiac ghost1991 (853936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844573)

The kernel is GPLv2 licensed, so they legally had to release that

Re:Not so bad... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842063)

Actually, it's most likely because they are Chinese (Taiwanese, same thing) and don't give a shit about open source anything. Having worked with Chinese and Taiwanese OEMs, I can tell you firsthand that getting them to abide by any open source licensing is like pulling teeth. If it's free to download, it's free to use however they like, period.

Posting anon because naive politically-correct types with zero Asian development experience will mod me down.

Re:Not so bad... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842829)

Koreans, too. Not the same AC. But the same sentiment. What little respect you find for the GPL originates in the West, and I really don't think it's unPC (or PinC?) to say so. I mean, the mentioned countries don't care much about our copyright, and the GPL depends on that to be effective, anyway. That's not to say that *nobody* cares but from what I have seen the large firms don't, anyway.

Luckily, I think we're past the day when most companies could go on ignoring it indefinitely. Good job, pokers and prodders.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843145)

Chinese (Taiwanese, same thing)

I think there's strong cultural behavioral differences between the two.

Anyway, though, I agree with your statement about the difficulty in getting them to abide by licensing. It's not just them, though; it's a problem with most societies outside of North America and the EU (and Japan, Australia, Israel, etc.). I don't think they're as concerned with legal niceties.

Re:Not so bad... (4, Interesting)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843521)

Even in the EU you can see differences. I am from central Europe, and sometimes I can only shake my head on the US you have to abide by the law no matter what mentality. We here have the mentality that law is done by people and sometimes the law is not fair so public disrespect and civil disobediance has to be done. That starts with small things but can also go big.
My personal opinion is this is the best way to cope with laws because as everything in life even laws are not a black and white thing, but if you live that way you have to live with getting punished (which literally no one cares here, unless the punishment starts to hurt severely)

So we dont have a black and white view on law. I assume if you go further east this becomes more along the lines of a nationalistic view of
we only care about laws which are done by us and no one else.
(We dont have that view on due to our history)

I guess our view is due to our history we have run through 2 fascistic governments
in the last 100 years and the laws back then neither wair fair nor could you obey
them without getting into conflict with your personal conscience.
There is always something above the law because law is done by man.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

dayjn (942897) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843933)

There are many people in the USA who agree with your view. I'm one of them. I suspect you're getting a biased view from what you read on the internet. If I had mod points, +1 Interesting.

Re:Not so bad... (1)

twoblink (201439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843991)

As someone currently in Taiwan and who's worked for dozens of IT companies..

In asia, "Copyright = Right to Copy". PERIOD. Taiwanese don't even respect their own lives, just look at the traffic!! Let alone respect laws. There's a reason why the former president if Taiwan is in Jail for life. Respecting GPL or any of that "nonsense" is not for the Taiwanese..

Re:Not so bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842149)

I'll keep their low priority to license agreements in mind when they start trying to enforce EULAs.

Nice (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#29841607)

Sure, I know, they were supposed to, by law. But they at least didn't drag their feet too long, and deserve some kudos for choosing an open-source platform to begin with.

What, if any, is the (physical or otherwise) obstacle for this device to become a hacker's darling? Here "hacker" is used in that old, positive meaning.

Re:Nice (2, Interesting)

wasabii (693236) | more than 4 years ago | (#29841947)

What, if any, is the (physical or otherwise) obstacle for this device to become a hacker's darling? Here "hacker" is used in that old, positive meaning.

I guess the same as every other Android phone? A signed flashing process that needs to be cracked?

The only reason people can install custom Android copies on the G1 is because of a leaked SPL and the root console bug. Oh, and the ADP.

Re:Nice (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842091)

Sure, I know, they were supposed to, by law. But they at least didn't drag their feet too long, and deserve some kudos for choosing an open-source platform to begin with.

I disagree here. Simply choosing to use open source software and then trying to stiff people their rights granted under that license isn't any better than choosing a closed source platform.

Let's not beat around the bush here. If there weren't enough people demanding the code, it would have never been released. I don't know about you, but I don't applaud anyone who is doing exactly what is required of them and no more.

Wow (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29841691)

I can't believe Verizon will FINALLY have a phone which can legitimately be decrippled. Maybe they won't even try to cripple it at all. Too bad too, because if Verizon gave up on that little game, anyone who didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO have a iPhone would be with them due to network strength. Let's hope the dust clears within the next 1 month and 1 week when my AT&T contract finally expires.

Re:Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29841929)

uh, i've had a non-crippled cell from verizon for years. learn what the fuck you're talking about instead of spreading lies.

and if you're going to give us this song and dance about not knowing because you haven't used them in years than you really need to shut the fuck up.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842285)

Amazing. The person who tells the truth gets modded down but the person who is spreading FUD gets modded up? This place is getting more like Digg each day.

Re:Wow (1)

psm321 (450181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842393)

Not true. I just tried Verizon again against my better judgement and not a _single_ phone they had was uncrippled. I looked around myself and the salespeople also said that there was none.

Re:Wow (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842417)

... anyone who didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO have a iPhone would be with [Verizon] due to network strength.

I'd have been with them since 2000 or so, when I first needed a cellphone, if they'd just put in ONE MORE TOWER. My Nevada place is on AT&T's LAST tower in the outskirts of the Reno-Taho/Carson City/Minden-Gardnerville/southbound-US395 coverage area and Verizon's last TWO towers are behind TWO hills and don't cover the valley. B-b

Sprint/Clearwire could have a bunch of customers, too, if they'd just put in a couple hotspots to relay from their Gardnerville tower to this dead spot. Right now all it's got is slow dialup (28k) and a mom-and-pop WiFi WISP(at $85ish/month to share a pair of T1s with several towns).

Code cleanup (3, Funny)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29841849)

They were probably stalling for time while they read over the source code to remove all the swear words and personal attacks against coworkers...

=Smidge=

Re:Code cleanup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29841923)

And look for any inappropriate easter eggs like p0rn pong and captain insemination.

Re:Code cleanup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842189)

Dammit Steve, you better have gotten rid of those.

Re:Code cleanup (1)

dbc (135354) | more than 4 years ago | (#29841927)

Who knows if that was truly the case here, but I can believe that it applies in some cases. Grown-up programmers don't put that slosh in the comments to begin with. Sadly, you see a fair amount of that in close-source code. Less than in the old days, but still too much.

Re:Code cleanup (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843507)

I dont know must be probably a US mentality, I have yet to see some european sourcecode which had a swear word in it, probably the main difference here is that programmers here simply cry them out into the air (we dont have the cubicle system but small offices mostly) so they do not have to type it in.

Re:Code cleanup (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842061)

They were probably stalling for time while they read over the source code to remove all the swear words and personal attacks against coworkers...
Man, they should have taken more time so that our outrage wouldn't go away... I need to find another reason to be outraged!1!!! Has apple released all their source code? omg! who is violating the GPL?!?!?

Re:Code cleanup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842567)

omg! who is violating the GPL?!?!?

Um, your mom? Surely that deft maneuver she used to undo my zipper with her tongue ring must have been copyrighted by someone...

Re:Code cleanup (2, Insightful)

Webcommando (755831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844873)

They were probably stalling for time while they read over the source code to remove all the swear words and personal attacks against coworkers...

=Smidge=

Don't forget they had to remove the 1000's of TODO's that were still in the code comments with several "We really should fix this before release" and a couple of "This works but I'm not sure why."

not android source code (5, Informative)

wcoenen (1274706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29841977)

This is not actually about android source code as the summary says. Android source code is distributed under the Apache License [wikipedia.org] , which doesn't require you to "give back" modifications to the open source community. This is just about the GPL-ed part: the linux kernel.

Re:not android source code (4, Insightful)

Dr_Marvin_Monroe (550052) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842563)

That's an awesome point. To drive that home a little further for the folks at www.phonenews.com, here's the snip from the above link to wikipedia

Licensing

Since 21 October 2008, Android has been available as open source. Google opened the entire source code (including network and telephony stacks[23]) under an Apache License.[24]

With the Apache License, vendors are free to add proprietary extensions without submitting those back to the open source community.

After the negative attitude I read on the link at "phonenews" from the article, I'm really wishing HTC hadn't released it... Just to put those folks at "phonenews" in their place. They don't know what they're talking about, spewing a bunch of hate towards people from India and they're just trashing on HTC.

I've been a author / user / supporter of open source software for over 10 years now and I'm still really shocked at the attitude and misconceptions that some folks have about what should be released and how fast it needs to be done. Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?

I've also personally worked with HTC on several mobile phones and I've found them to be very forthcoming. They're busy as hell, working insane hours continuously, and if they can't satisfy the Trolls at phonenews, that's too bad.

Re:not android source code (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843201)

Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?

As I recall, they're required to either ship with source or release the code to all who ask for it.

Re:not android source code (2, Informative)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844193)

No, just provide users of binary releases either source, or a written offer valid for a few years to provide source. Certainly not to everyone [gnu.org] .

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

[snip]

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

Re:not android source code (0, Offtopic)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844345)

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party,

Re:not android source code (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844403)

Err... precisely my point?

Re:not android source code (1)

mmj638 (905944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843235)

Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?

July 2009. Over three months ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Hero [wikipedia.org]

Even if HTC were not compelled by law to release their source code (which I believe they were, because the kernel is not the part under the Apache license), they would still have been compelled to do so in order to keep their word, given that they have been talking about releasing the source for months.

So it's good that after all this time it's happened.

Re:not android source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29843435)

What I personally think is that some of the guys crying for the sourcecode wanted to get the code of the touchflo widgets, well they will be in for a bad surprise and will have to learn a lesson regarding licenses.

A little unfair... (4, Informative)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842011)

I would venture to say that any decision to delay the release of code has very little to do with HTC trying to stonewall.
Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.
Naturally, Andriod has access to the phones protocol and RF layers. Giving the user access to these layers is a VERY, VERY bad idea.
To sell a mobile phone in North America, a manufacture must obtain PTCRB certification. This is a very stringent set of tests which look at all layers and all the hardware, including the antenna performance. We are talking more than 6000 tests and more than $800K!!
Once they pass..this SVN (Software version number) is locked in. ANY changes in code or hardware and the manufacture must make an ECO with PTCRB and make some additional checks.
The main reasons for this is network health and link budgets.
The carrier must be able to count on your phone acting in a predetermined way in order to keep the network on the air. Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!
I can promise you that the carriers will NEVER allow a situation where YOU can alter those layers and kill the network.
I am sure HTC need a fair amount of time to figure out how to lock it down and still let you mess with the OS.

Re:A little unfair... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842139)

Sounds like bad design to me.

What if a router could be brought down just by a single misbehaving client? I think the company that made that router wouldn't sell many routers.

Just sayin'.

Re:A little unfair... (2, Insightful)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842355)

if it is a wireless router, a single misbehaving client can render it useless.

not surprising that it is possible to jam cell a cell tower with a cell phone if the phone was somehow set to constantly transmit random data at full power. If the tower can't hear the other phones because yours is shouting at it constantly there is nothing you can do to stop that.

Re:A little unfair... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842167)

I think you mean the that the main reason for this is bad network design.

If one single phone could do that then their engineering dept needs to be fired.
Imagine if computer networks worked this way.

Re:A little unfair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842205)

They do. My network card is made out of an ICBM. Flip the evil bit, and voil@*^$&@$*&%@$*&T%*#&%&*^NO CARRIER

Re:A little unfair... (3, Informative)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842291)

A major complication is the fact that today's PDA phones are basically cellular winmodems. Ever wonder why a Samsung SPH-i300 with ~40MHz 680x0-ish Dragonfire didn't feel all that much slower than a 400MHz dual-core ARM running WinMo? Part of the problem is WinMo's bloat... but an even bigger part of the problem is the fact that cpu #2 spends basically 100% of its time being a software-based faux DSP anytime the radio is in use... and occasionally steals cycles from cpu #1 while it's at it. In contrast, the humble i300 was literally a cell phone radio bolted to a PalmOS PDA, connected by LITERALLY a serial port. In every meaningful way, the two were completely independent. Dialed a number on the LCD-rendered keypad? The Palm side sent what was basically an ATDT command to the phone side. Incoming call? The phone side did the actual ringtone (the beefy speaker was connected to the phone; the palm side just had a wimpy piezo), and sent ###RING xxxxxxxxxx down the serial port for the Palm to decide what to do with it. Pressed the green button to answer the call? The Palm side sent (literally) ATA down the serial port to the phone. And so on.

The good thing about Winmodem-like cellphones is... um... er... uh... well, I'm sure there's something good about it. But anyway, the bad thing is that it means that you're basically talking about a gigahertz-rate raw DAC and ADC creating a software-defined radio. The supreme irony is that the hardware in a G1 probably COULD be hacked to do UMTS at 850MHz on AT&T... but it would be utterly illegal, precisely because it would wreak havoc with AT&T's network and mess up your neighbors' service while you spent saturday afternoon debugging it.

As I understand it, a phone running Android (or Windows Mobile, for that matter) is kind of like a PC running Linux under VMware under Windows (or vice-versa). You have the hypervisor-like "Supreme Controller" that runs the software that makes it a radio, with Linux-nee-Android running under the hypervisor. So you really ARE root as far as Linux/Android is concerned, but behind the curtain, Root has a metaphorical deity of his own to serve. I'm not entirely sure how it's enforced, and how much of it is handled by actual hardware partitioning (ie, whether the CPU takes a cue from memory curtaining, so that the core running the radio has ram and registers that the core running the UI and apps can't touch), but that's a rough summary of what happens behind the scenes on an Android phone.

Re:A little unfair... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842317)

Seems like the old way really is the better way. I want a dataphone that connects like my laptop, It just talks to the verizon broadband card via serial.

#and no stupid verizon app needed on ubuntu.

Re:A little unfair... (2, Interesting)

lordlod (458156) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842389)

The good thing about Winmodem-like cellphones is... um... er... uh... well, I'm sure there's something good about it.

It's cheaper. Cost is the God in consumer electronics upon which everything else is sacrificed. The could be saving up to $5 per phone doing it this way. Ship 20 million phones and that's $100 million dollars in the bank. The effort made in consumer electronics to save four cents (over 10 million units) would probably make your head spin.

The difference in the two approaches isn't as much as you are making out to be. The dedicated radio chip is still running a microprocessor written in software. By combining the two processors in the single package you save cost and space (more cost).

The major downside to this is debugging the radio processing where it's interfered with by other actions on the phone, having two cores probably helps a lot with this. That said, assigning three engineers full time for a year to figure it out is trivial compared to the savings you get.

(I spent a year of my life fixing a 'creative' electronic circuit that saved us 8 cents per board).

Re:A little unfair... (3, Interesting)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842561)

> The effort made in consumer electronics to save four cents (over 10 million units) would probably make your head spin.

Tell me about it. It's what condemned many very, very expensive first-generation CD-Rs to the coaster bin (no ram buffer to speak of, so if the CPU got distracted for even a fraction of a second, the CD was toast), and sent almost every Samsung SPH-i330 to an early grave (a few cents saved using mask rom instead of flash, coupled with a fatal bug that bricked them within a few weeks of use and couldn't be fixed). Not to mention the problems due to aggressive cost-cutting that have plagued videogame consoles for decades. Red Ring of Death, anyone?

Re:A little unfair... (5, Informative)

bushing (20804) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842533)

A major complication is the fact that today's PDA phones are basically cellular winmodems. [...] In contrast, the humble i300 was literally a cell phone radio bolted to a PalmOS PDA, connected by LITERALLY a serial port.

[...]As I understand it, a phone running Android (or Windows Mobile, for that matter) is kind of like a PC running Linux under VMware under Windows (or vice-versa).

This is not true, at least not in the case of the iPhone (which has an Infineon baseband processor connected to a Samsung "Applications Processor" by "LITERALLY a serial port") or the Palm Pre (Qualcomm baseband, TI OMAP AP).

Qualcomm's product info page for the MSM7201 [qctconnect.com] processor used in the HTC Hero says that it includes "Integrated ARM11 applications processor and ARM9 modem, QDSP4000 and QDSP5000 high-performance digital signal processors (DSP)". It would seem likely that the ARM9 core (in combination with one or both of the DSPs) does all of the modem work; I see no reason to suspect that the ARM11 ever "steals cycles from cpu #1".

Re:A little unfair... (3, Informative)

cliffjumper222 (229876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842785)

Mod this guy up, the parent doesn't know what he's talking about. Most smartphones use dual cores or bridge architectures where the applications processor and the modem processor are separate and communicate over a serial link, be it USB, shock-horror a UART or shared memory. And even more shock horror, yes they might even use AT commands to do talk to each other - even today!

Re:A little unfair... (1)

ripnet (541583) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843909)

Yes, they are seperate. How do you think they got phone / sms / data working on the Kaiser on the Android port if all the DSP etc is software ???

Re:A little unfair... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844797)

Exactly, I have yet to find a Cellphone that has the modem DSP a soft DSP that is a driver in the OS that is running it. and I have been inside every cellphone model made in the past 5 years.

Re:A little unfair... (2, Insightful)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842379)

it is wireless, a shared medium. only one client on any given frequency at any given time. it will always be possible to jam radio signals. no amount of engineering can change this

Re:A little unfair... (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842931)

Actually..that's not quite true. You can share the same channel, you need only a different UL/DL slot configuration.

Re:A little unfair... (2, Interesting)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843021)

you have divided the channel into slots in order to share it. slots are assigned by time (TDMA) or frequency (CDMA/FHSS) or other means.

still only one transmitter per frequency per moment in time

Re:A little unfair... (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844171)

still only one transmitter per frequency per moment in time

Not true with CDMA. The entire point of CDMA is that it enables radios to do just that - multiple transmitters operating at the same time. Sounds like magic, but just check out the wiki [wikipedia.org] page for more info. They refer to it as spread-spectrum technology.

And the ideas behind CDMA have made there way into 3G and 4G standards so all future cell products will all support multiple transmitters to a certain extent.

Re:A little unfair... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844813)

Are you nuts? only with maybe a 1000 watt transmitter blasting across the band on a high gain antenna directly at the cell tower. There is no way in hell you or anyone else can modify a callphone to jam a tower. hell good luck even jamming a single channel with your tiny power output on a handset..

Re:A little unfair... (1)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844811)

To be fair, a transmitter you can fit in your pocket can "take down" (block) cell service for a pretty decently sized area around it. Jamming, RFI, etc are pretty much unavoidable in any RF based system. You can mitigate them to some extent, but there's pretty much no way any network architecture can prevent me from taking down an area of service with a strong enough jammer.

Cell phones can also jam each other with bad programming (hence the required testing) if they do things like transmit in the wrong timeslot (GSM) or with the wrong hamming codes (CDMA). Because the "wire" interface is RF, there are all kinds of ways for a phone with a bad radio to interfere with all the phones on the tower.

Re:A little unfair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842489)

"Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!"

I call shenanigans! If this were true at all, then terrorists or whatever we're currently supposed to be afraid of would have done it already, and we'd know about it. Some Nokias and an eeprom burner are pretty cheap, although I'm not sure if H1N1 has hands yet.

Re:A little unfair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29842985)

Yes, yes I... err it dose.

Re:A little unfair... (3, Informative)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842503)

The radio software and SPL (second program loader) in a HTC Android phone are closed source, Android sits on top of this and is more analogous to a VM running on a light OS underneath. (As someone points out below, you may think have root on your droid, but you don't really have root). Thus it is not really harmful to have the Android code out there, as the low-level software that would do the most harm is proprietary and fairly well protected.

Re:A little unfair... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29843187)

The bootloader and radio firmware are indeed closed source, but the linux kernel and android userspace run on their own cpu (an ARM11) while the radio firmware runs on its own cpu (an ARM9). They chatter via shared memory. Once the bootloader has loaded the kernel, the kernel's in charge of the apps cpu. No VM or hypervisor exists (at least not on the Qualcomm 7xxx/8xxx chipsets -- you could, of course do it differently elsewhere).

You do need to talk to the ARM9 to have it setup the DSP for you, for it to handle telephony tasks, and so on.

Re:A little unfair... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842843)

``The carrier must be able to count on your phone acting in a predetermined way in order to keep the network on the air. Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!''

If that is true, I foresee Interesting Times. There are always ... individuals ... who think it's great fun to break things, not to mention people who actively seek to do harm ...

Re:A little unfair... (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842973)

All your points are valid, but they don't negate the fact that if you use code under a license that requires you to make your code or modifications available to those you distribute the binaries to, you have to abide by the terms of the license and do so.

Re:A little unfair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29843503)

The carrier must be able to count on your phone acting in a predetermined way in order to keep the network on the air. Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!

Then this is a shocking vulnerability that should be fixed. Hiding the code from the user is a half-arsed hack around it - sooner or later, it's going to happen.

Re:A little unfair... (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844735)

Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.

Um yes I can, Please give me the LAWS that state otherwise.

I can do ANYTHING I WANT with my phone. I have an openmoko on AT&T and they cant control my phone other than turning off service. I can do anything I want with my phone, and the worse they can do is turn off service.

Sweet (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842279)

Does this mean I can finally kick some ass on Guitar Hero?

Not GPL (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842837)

The last I heard, the only GPL'd part of Android is the kernel. Everything else is Apache/BSD. So, aside from the kernel, HTC wasn't really "dragging their feet," since they released their modifications voluntarily.

Edimax (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29842993)

For a look at a company who does things differently, have a look at Edimax. For example, for their NS-2502 NAS appliance [edimax.com] , they provide a link to the source code right on the product page.

Unfortunately, the source code doesn't come with instructions for compiling it into a firmware package that you can install on the device, but then, it doesn't look like the GPL actually mandates that, either.

As far as I see, it's only kernel source ... (2, Informative)

kojot350 (1330899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843277)

I see only kernel source here: http://developer.htc.com/ [htc.com] so it looks like they released only the part they had too.

Re:As far as I see, it's only kernel source ... (2, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29843497)

Yeah why should they release the other part, touchflo is their bread and butter, without that they simply would be just another phone vendor and even one with mediocre low end specced hardware. Touchflo is the part which stands out compared to the rest of the phones.
I would only release the source either if I was in their position.

Not the game (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29844787)

Did they have to make it sound like they released the source code to the classic game?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.E.R.O [wikipedia.org] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...