Is this the kernal source?

[Demolition Man]

HTC - Developer Center

Looks like HTC might have finally put the kernal source for TB online. Can someone confirm this is it?

Credit to uthinkisay at the XDA forums for catching this if so. Here's the thread he started.

 

[titans]

I would be a betting man.

 

[mkjellgren]

If this is true this is tremendous news for the tb dev community!!!

Sent from my ADR6400L using DroidForums App

 

[fchowd0696]

has anyone looked over the code and checked to see if the lte code is in there?

 

[droidic]

http://developer.htc.com/
Confirmed

Simply Stunning Gingerbread 5.2 low voltage 1.2ghz

 

[MrKleen]

Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This makes my day!

 

[funkyb]

has anyone looked over the code and checked to see if the lte code is in there?

Yes, looks like it is.

 

[sgtguthrie]

I contacted someone at GPL-Vionlations.org like a week ago because it hadn't been released. He was going to contact HTC again, maybe that's what worked... or HTC decided it would be easier to just comply...lol

 

[fchowd0696]

has anyone looked over the code and checked to see if the lte code is in there?

Yes, looks like it is.

awesome! does this mean that roms like cm7 will have an easy time implementing 4g?

 

[mkjellgren]

has anyone looked over the code and checked to see if the lte code is in there?

Yes, looks like it is.

awesome! does this mean that roms like cm7 will have an easy time implementing 4g?

Easy? Doubtful... Easier? Absolutely!!! It's still gonna take some time but this is a huge step in the right direction.


Sent from my ADR6400L using DroidForums App

 

[Fronc]

I contacted someone at GPL-Vionlations.org like a week ago because it hadn't been released. He was going to contact HTC again, maybe that's what worked... or HTC decided it would be easier to just comply...lol

It's already been discussed. They weren't in violation of GPL just yet. But we all appreciate the added pressure you and the rest of the dev community put on HTC. Doesn't matter if it was threats or mere consumer demand. Clearly, something worked.

 

[sgtguthrie]

I contacted someone at GPL-Vionlations.org like a week ago because it hadn't been released. He was going to contact HTC again, maybe that's what worked... or HTC decided it would be easier to just comply...lol

It's already been discussed. They weren't in violation of GPL just yet. But we all appreciate the added pressure you and the rest of the dev community put on HTC. Doesn't matter if it was threats or mere consumer demand. Clearly, something worked.

It really doesn't matter anymore, but i don't know who told you they weren't in violation of the GPL for the Linux Kernel. But according to the guy I contacted at GPL-Violations.org they were, and it was definitely not the first time either. Half the people discussing it have never even looked at the GPL, instead interjecting opinions and passing along the interpretations of others.

I'm not saying that was the case where you got your info, but that's what I've seen from many "$hit-house lawyers" in the forums, here and elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents...like you and I both said though, doesn't really matter anymore and I'm just glad HTC did the right thing in a timely manner!

 

[Fronc]

I contacted someone at GPL-Vionlations.org like a week ago because it hadn't been released. He was going to contact HTC again, maybe that's what worked... or HTC decided it would be easier to just comply...lol

It's already been discussed. They weren't in violation of GPL just yet. But we all appreciate the added pressure you and the rest of the dev community put on HTC. Doesn't matter if it was threats or mere consumer demand. Clearly, something worked.

It really doesn't matter anymore, but i don't know who told you they weren't in violation of the GPL for the Linux Kernel. But according to the guy I contacted at GPL-Violations.org they were, and it was definitely not the first time either. Half the people discussing it have never even looked at the GPL, instead interjecting opinions and passing along the interpretations of others.

I'm not saying that was the case where you got your info, but that's what I've seen from many "$hit-house lawyers" in the forums, here and elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents...like you and I both said though, doesn't really matter anymore and I'm just glad HTC did the right thing in a timely manner!

In all honesty, I probably shouldn't have posted so matter-of-factly. I'm just a law student, and I've not studied the GPL. From what I can understand just from reading through briefly it is that HTC had 30 days to rectify their "violation," a violation being that they did not release source code licensed under the GPL.

See § 8. Termination, in relevant part:

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

Seeing as the phone and software was released less than a month ago, it would seem that they were still within their grace period. But that's assuming the "copyright holder" notified them. In this case, I believe the copyright holder is Google, and it wouldn't come as a surprise to see el Goog providing one of their biggest mobile os distributors with a little bit of leniency.

In a nutshell, it is my impression that it plays out like this:

1. HTC releases tbolt with kernel licensed under GPL
2. Consumers purchase tbolt, gain right to obtain source
3. If consumers request source, HTC needs to comply
4. If HTC doesn't comply, copyright holder must notify them
5. if copyright holder notifies them, they have 30 days to rectify the situation

My gut tells me this gets hung up at #4 when dealing with a time frame of only a month.

As you said, it doesn't really matter, but I learned a little bit by looking into this. If anyone has further (accurate) information to share, feel free.

Otherwise, happy over/underclocking!

Anyone with more knowledge is welcome to chime in

 

[sgtguthrie]

It's already been discussed. They weren't in violation of GPL just yet. But we all appreciate the added pressure you and the rest of the dev community put on HTC. Doesn't matter if it was threats or mere consumer demand. Clearly, something worked.

It really doesn't matter anymore, but i don't know who told you they weren't in violation of the GPL for the Linux Kernel. But according to the guy I contacted at GPL-Violations.org they were, and it was definitely not the first time either. Half the people discussing it have never even looked at the GPL, instead interjecting opinions and passing along the interpretations of others.

I'm not saying that was the case where you got your info, but that's what I've seen from many "$hit-house lawyers" in the forums, here and elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents...like you and I both said though, doesn't really matter anymore and I'm just glad HTC did the right thing in a timely manner!

In all honesty, I probably shouldn't have posted so matter-of-factly. I'm just a law student, and I've not studied the GPL. From what I can understand just from reading through briefly it is that HTC had 30 days to rectify their "violation," a violation being that they did not release source code licensed under the GPL.

See § 8. Termination, in relevant part:

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

Seeing as the phone and software was released less than a month ago, it would seem that they were still within their grace period. But that's assuming the "copyright holder" notified them. In this case, I believe the copyright holder is Google, and it wouldn't come as a surprise to see el Goog providing one of their biggest mobile os distributors with a little bit of leniency.

In a nutshell, it is my impression that it plays out like this:

1. HTC releases tbolt with kernel licensed under GPL
2. Consumers purchase tbolt, gain right to obtain source
3. If consumers request source, HTC needs to comply
4. If HTC doesn't comply, copyright holder must notify them
5. if copyright holder notifies them, they have 30 days to rectify the situation

My gut tells me this gets hung up at #4 when dealing with a time frame of only a month.

As you said, it doesn't really matter, but I learned a little bit by looking into this. If anyone has further (accurate) information to share, feel free.

Otherwise, happy over/underclocking!

Anyone with more knowledge is welcome to chime in

I think you're pretty much right on except google wouldn't be the license holder for the Linux kernel... but either way, the obligation is that when HTC releases the device they must release the code. This is my understanding and I'm definitely no lawyer, but i don't think they need to be notified by the license holder for it to be a violation. Notice of violation yes, but technically still a violation as I understand it.

Bottom line, come on HTC... release the code when the phone launches... lol

Then again, maybe I'm being one of those "$hit house lawyers"I was talking about... lol. I did read it though

Sent from my Droid running whatever ROM and Kernel I chose to use today...