Related
I decided to go and pay for SMS Commander because I like the concept of the application and that we will have free updates. Well the latest update for SMS Commander allows it to work with "Addons." And the addon it is referring to is now an application called SMSC Record, that will only work if you have SMS Commander first. SMSC Record is simply 2 new commands added to the system that allows it to record sound from the phone remotely. Which would be fine if it was simply just an optional download, but if you want it you have to pay another $1.00. It seems like this should just have been included in the SMS Commander update and this whole addon idea seems like just another way for the developer to make more money off his popular app and sly around the free update system.
Am I wrong for being mad about this? If he's going to make you pay more money for each new option to the program doesn't that just defeat the update system.
All depends on how many add-ons he has and if any of the updates come with free new features. Think of it as upgrading from xp to vista Microsoft makes you pay more money for more (or less ) features with the new OS
sms commander
well if developers are gonna be updating there apps with addons and charging 99 cents for every single update/addon then here i said it i will be downloading the cracked app or wait for another developer to say you know what ima make this app for free so he dont get a dime anymore example wifi awake app theirs 3 new apps that are free with the intention of the charge app not to get any money so hopefully someone will come up with a sms commander app soon for free or atleast the updates for free/addons.
Nice to hear people encourage developers to put a lot of time in developing useful applications for just 1$...
sigh...
If you don't like it, don't buy it... if you think a dollar is too much then i wonder how you make a living.
Most of my work is open-source and done in my own time ( after my daily work as a c# developer ) and most of the time it keeps me busy till late in the night. Luckily there are still people supporting my open-source work and randomly donating some money instead of going crazy about one dollar...
rogro82 said:
If you don't like it, don't buy it... if you think a dollar is too much then i wonder how you make a living.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you.
I think you guys are missing the point of his post. He is not complaining that the ass-on is a dollar but that he has to pay for an add-on to an app that he already purchased for $2.99 or whatever SMS Commander costs.
It's an issue of Microtransactions that I do not agree with at all. Charging your customers nockles and dimes for minor updates doesn't seem like much but it can snowball into developers intentionally leaving out content of an app to charge you for it later when they need or want mor money, which is what this SMS Commander situation looks like.
Yes, and that's where the public votes with it's wallet. A dev who uses this tactic, right or wrong, will be told by the buyers (and more importantly, non-buyers) that this process is unacceptable. If he can't sell his app using his current model, he'll have to work on another model, or cede the app's functionality to some other dev who will do the customers a better job.
The original poster asked if s/he was wrong being mad. I think so. This is part of the beauty of a somewhat-free Market.
I'm a huge fan of this app... I had the free trial which was buggy and not very good compared to the new version. I decided to go ahead and buy it when paid apps were released because I figured it must be quite an improvement if he was charging money for it. Although the UI stayed very similar, the additional commands are awesome! At first, I was also confused about the add-ons but after I decided to download SMSC Record, I actually really liked it. It could be its own app. I talked to the developer and he actually has plans to release many more free updates; he just thought that SMSC Record warranted charging an extra dollar and I have to say he's probably right.
The dev also told me that he already has these updates ready; however, he's going to wait until google works out its bugs on downloading updates before people get frustrated by not being able to download updates(the initial reason why I contacted him).
I'm going to have to agree with those who say that if you don't want the add-on, then don't buy it...you'll have your chance to get more free updates for this app for sure.
u cry for a buck? how much ur G1 cost you? x_x
he's not crying for a buck hes crying for being charged for an add ons/updates imagine getting charged for updates that gives your apps new features.. i don't think it is right either but i'm not complaining
I'm Searching for TORRENT for leSscro WP7 theme,
since he claims what he takes from people is DONATIONS then his theme is FREE, then its not Piracy so, dose anyone have a torrent for it
-------------------
P.S not meaning to couse any problems, if Mods think its inapporptiet feel free to delete this
! wait till this thread becomes a crap of useless insults and arguments !
to clarify:
donations are not requirement. ask author to provide theme in his thread. if he does not than he needs to remove donation and ask for a fee to be able to get theme.
having said this only reply if you are posting theme or you are theme author and have problem with this request.
oh, Mods closed his thread already coz for him donations are requirements lol, but he still claims its donation, so...
maybe someone can PM me a link to that theme...
from what i understand his latest theme is FREE < http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=662034 >
what is not free is the application you need to run the theme, (Throttle Launcher)
you need to buy a license to be able to fully utilize this application.
however, there is a FREE license you can use for some time (but not for long)
i'm saying this out of experience. i have tried both the theme and the app.
at the moment i was not satisfied due to some lags.
but in fairness, it is still in beta, i believe.
somebody correct me if i'm wrong, please
biernes_atrece said:
from what i understand his latest theme is FREE < http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=662034 >
what is not free is the application you need to run the theme, (Throttle Launcher)
you need to buy a license to be able to fully utilize this application.
however, there is a FREE license you can use for some time (but not for long)
i'm saying this out of experience. i have tried both the theme and the app.
at the moment i was not satisfied due to some lags.
but in fairness, it is still in beta, i believe.
somebody correct me if i'm wrong, please
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LoL, No.
Lesscro uses WAD2; his theme is not posted here in XDA. He had a thread and it was closed, exactly because he was asking for "mandatory donations". He now has his own little forum and shares his development with those interested in donating to him.
With regards to a torrent not being pyracy; I am afraid that is incorrect. Lesscro is the copyright holder; therefore, you need his pemission to do a copy of his theme. End of the story.
@biernes
You linked to Arley12's work. His theme is for free. Furthermore, Throttle Launcher is for free as well. However, the author of TL allows users to donate and rewards them with a full licence if they do so.
I hope this provides some clarity.
yes
i use his theme is kinda cool... is just a theme, if you want WAD cracked or so... go and search dont ask here for that...
mods...
vladimir2989 said:
I'm Searching for TORRENT for leSscro WP7 theme,
since he claims what he takes from people is DONATIONS then his theme is FREE, then its not Piracy so, dose anyone have a torrent for it
-------------------
P.S not meaning to couse any problems, if Mods think its inapporptiet feel free to delete this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL funny how you used his own words against him.. I would probably suggest sweet talking lesscro insto giving it to you
nsane said:
LoL, No.
Lesscro uses WAD2; his theme is not posted here in XDA. He had a thread and it was closed, exactly because he was asking for "mandatory donations". He now has his own little forum and shares his development with those interested in donating to him.
With regards to a torrent not being pyracy; I am afraid that is incorrect. Lesscro is the copyright holder; therefore, you need his pemission to do a copy of his theme. End of the story.
@biernes
You linked to Arley12's work. His theme is for free. Furthermore, Throttle Launcher is for free as well. However, the author of TL allows users to donate and rewards them with a full licence if they do so.
I hope this provides some clarity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Lesscro is the copyright holder" NOT TRUE if we need to be honest the copyright holder is Microsoft so if we think like that.. Lesscro need also to ask Microsoft can he create Theme like this.. and even to Pay a license.. all this with this theme.. look for me funny its like
I download from some pirat sites MP3 songs for free and then im selling them in my site and pretend you need to pay for the license.. here in XDA 90% of the things are Microsoft Copy Right Ideas etc...
lol! i got it all mixed up. my bad
tsalta said:
"Lesscro is the copyright holder" NOT TRUE if we need to be honest the copyright holder is Microsoft so if we think like that.. Lesscro need also to ask Microsoft can he create Theme like this.. and even to Pay a license.. all this with this theme.. look for me funny its like
I download from some pirat sites MP3 songs for free and then im selling them in my site and pretend you need to pay for the license.. here in XDA 90% of the things are Microsoft Copy Right Ideas etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ignorance is a bliss.
Microsoft holds the copyright to the Metro UI, both on the front of the design of the UI and the underlying code. Just so you know, copyright does not protect ideas but only the expression of those idea.
Lesscro coded his own theme, thus owns the copyright to his code; no infringement there.
With regards to the interface, Obviously Lesscro's work is not a copy of the Metro UI...Metro UI is not even COMPLETE. Lesscro merely took inspiration from what has been displayed so far by Microsoft. This is not sufficient to render his theme a derivative work; his theme is definitely an independent creation. As such he does not need a licence.
The only real problematic aspect would be the use of Microsoft's trade marks, in Lesscro's theme. But you didn't even think about that.
I am going to stop discussing this with you. No point in debating IP law on the internet.
alright someone reported a complaint about this thread so i am going to close it but before i do so i will reiterate a point about copyright, donations, and torrents:
yes any work created in expressed form is copyright where as the idea is what can be patented.
secondly the term donation is used for voluntary giving of money so you can't distribute copyright work under "forced donations". if you want to charge a monetary sum for your copyright work than you need to state it as a usage fee or something of that nature NOT donation. i understand the creator of the theme has already had action taken against him for requiring "forced donations" as there is no such thing; due to this he now distributes his theme through different channels.
third seeking torrent for stuff that is distributed under donation basis i.e. payment is not required is not illegal. requesting a torrent of a software that is distributed without requesting money and only donations is perfectly legal.
i will take up any arguments responses on my profile page as long as there is intelligent reasoning used as a basis.
Android is open. That's why I have my Samsung Galaxy S, my Nexus One and my Sapphire.
I have these phones because the open community can do better than the professionals, and I am proud to be a member of a community that has recently hacked Froyo onto the G1, Android2HD2 (and other Winmo devices), created great skins and themes, rooted almost every droid to date, hacked google navigation to work in other countries etc etc etc.
There is amazing work being done is this community.
Kingklick was able to put out a lot of ROMs which satisfied a lot of people. Contributors to Cyanogenmod (disclaimer. notably not Cyanogen himself) and others (fans and friends - disclaimer. note lack of word fanboys - of cyanogenmod, disclaimer. plus some others too) have flamed and flamed away about Kangklick (notably via twitter - I have stopped following any of those jerks that clogged up my feeds with what could've - screw that - should've been settled MUCH more privately..I followed you guys for dev news or the occasional interesting insight into your real life, not your petty bickering, but you have every right to post what you like...hence why I stopped following you all, I didn't flame you...note 'bigger man').
Rule 12 of XDArules clearly states that using the work of others must be done with permission, independent of whether it is open source or not. If this is not upheld then the post will be bought down, it does not say the user will be banned. I would understand the formality of taking the post down and requesting Kingklick reposts the ROM with due credit, but I believe - note believe...implies opinion - that moderators may have been influenced by pressure from other (high ranking, public eye) members and thus did not adhere to normal or just (I do not know if not giving creds is normally treated in this way, but you will discover I believe it shouldn't be) protacol. Kingklick broke the rules of XDA, but then again I see his banning as the least contentious issue here.
I believe that members of the XDA community in the public eye (ie with large Twitter follower base) due to their work via XDA (no matter what you say, cyanogenmod may be based at its own domain, but it still posts at XDA to maintain its public profile and feed of the massive XDA userbase, and is hence in part bound by this) have a responsibility to follow the rules of XDA on XDA rules and disputes. I do not think this is something which can be policed ('I'm banning you Wes for Trolling Kingklick...on Twitter'... not gonna work) but I think it is a moral obligation (anyone that thinks the internet is not bound by morality should take a reality check...the reason why we have open source is essentially ethics).
Do we give credit to Linus Torvalds every time we distribute linux kernels or work to do with linux? Do we give credit to those that helped him create this base? Do we give credit to Google for creating Android? HTC? Our carriers? Martin Cooper for inventing the mobile phone and cell networks? Time Berners-Lee for inventing the internet, giving rise to this forum, Google and thus the Phones/Devices we love and use? The fact is we don't give credit where due (although you may say its obscure to thank these people, they DO deserve our thanks). None of the ROM chefs/coders give all credit where due, but a lot do in part, with those directly involved. But who still thanks the original rooters?
Kingklick has been declared a copier by the jury...I haven't delved through the evidence to confirm this...but shouldn't we be much more relaxed about copying in general? All users should be open about their work with Android, but they are not. If kingklick based a build off Cyanongenmod, and gave due credit for that, he would be called unoriginal, despite his attempts to make improvements. I also believe that there should be transparency, a log of all complaints of interest and the community told in a statement from the mods why someone was banned...at least in part (keeping gory details to themselves thank you very much).
Donations are generally given by 'end-users'...noobs who can flash and maybe do some work on the builds but their contributions are limited. End users generally want user experience, and reward devs with commendation and donations. If kingklick does work on a build which satisfies more users and he hence gets donations, is that stealing donations? No. The original dev works on an open source project knowing that their work is open, but the end user can reward as he/she likes. Perhaps kingklick developed his following due to his branding...he did always use words like FAST and STABLE and SMOOTH, but Apple do the same and they're not banned from trading despite the hyperbole.
I do not doubt that a lot of devs thanks fellow devs with donations. Cyanogen is well known for donating, as is kingklick, however a lot of donations come from end users, and if kingklick replaces a few files using winrar (something which I generally contest, I believe kingklick does a lot of great work) and that satisfies more end users by being fast and stable and smooth (or perceived as being so thanks to branding) then he can get donations for that, they are a gesture of satisfaction and goodwill.
Kingklick was immoral by not giving true credit, however I believe that he could have been warned and asked to give credit once he got back from his night out (whether that excuse, or what ever his actual excuse was, was true).
I also laugh at the accusation that kingklick does not fill a niche within the 'open'/'free' community. This should not result in grudges and flame wars, whether it is true or not. Kingklick did fill a niche in my opinion: reviewers (and consumers) see vanilla android as being sterile. Hell it is sterile, and it's never going to be as successful as others if it doesn't sort this out. Cyanogenmod and other big names are based off this sterile form of Android, but they don't delve into Sense UI and other alternative skins, mainly due to preferences or copyright problems etc, not that that stops them with other things. Kingklick did work with these and he filled his niche by delivering great, fast, usable roms of these whilst others sneered at them for being inefficient coding or whatever...geeky snobbery.
Kingklick also delivered various fixes and things which other groups did not. I won't list all of these and I am sure representatives of Cyanogenmob et al will say 'we were gonna fix these issues anyways' or 'that's redundant' or 'that was patchy code', but kingklick has contributed. Obviously we have to hold ethics above output, we can not say that 'his holiness' (inteneded to mock those who believe cyanogen alone is a god, not cyanogen himself) Cyanogen's contributions to android exempt him from following conduct, but we do a great job of driving away good developers with flaming and telling tales. Perhaps you'll say kingklick was not a good developer, Drizzy, even Haykuro etc etc, but I only flashed Cyanogenmod on my Nexus once and I didn't like it for various reasons (personal preference yada yada) but I kept going back for more kingklick...whether that's perceived speed and branding etc or just satisfaction.
King's desire roms are great, but we never mobbed, trolled and banned the poor guy for not giving creds to HTC. Surely the morality of our community using software like Rosie on the Nexus is more ethically questionable than a fellow member of XDA's work, since HTC is a firm which employs people. I bought a Nexus over the Desire because I knew I could still have Sense and a bigger dev community, however the cost included in the Desire which goes to the developers of Sense is hence forgone (perhaps indeirectly, I don;t know HTC internal funding); therefore I have - and anyone who has ever flashed a Sense ROM or devved with Sense - indirectly caused loss of welfare for people who rely of developing as their source of income, tehir families, communities and economies. Surely that is less ethical than not saying thank you, but XDA has no problem with that. Perhaps it is too small to notice, but it will have an indirect impact nonetheless.
Yes kingklick should've said his please and thank you, but I think it's community hyped double standards, pretensical courtesy (not that I wouldn't give creds, it's just that pleases and thank yous are nice, but not actually useful). A wise man once said 'there is no threshold for immorality', just because kingklick did a larger 'crime' than the rest of the community in not giving his thanks out, that does not exempt the other rule breakers (ie everyone), it just means their punishment should be less severe...we choose to ignore it because it's less direct or forgotten about.
In conclusion, I think we should start a 'contributors to Android' part of XDA, added to by mods or specifically appointed members of the community (like the portal). This could be informative and could mean that forgotten about contributors could not be forgotten, but their contributions immortalised in the open community of Android. Even if the contributions become redundant, they are the foundations for the next chapter in the Android story.
Finally. www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is a very good read..and think about what AOSP stands for (I'll give you a clue...Android Open Source Project!). Can you steal what is open? What right have others to dictate what can and cannot be distributed in the open aspects of Android code (ie the underlying OS and vanilla UI...I'm not confused with Apps). Perhaps kingklick was guilty of plagiarism? But so is anyone that claims they worked really hard in that kernel without crediting Linus and leaving a donation link to his family or favourite charitable causes. Anyone that says I've reworked the UI without giving credits to The Astonishing Tribe for the original Android concepts which all UIs are based off...
Android is closed, that's why I question this 'community'.
I am not proud to be a member of this 'community'...right now.
Ps. Cyanogenmob was originally a typo (using words like mobbed in my piece...Freudian slip on the keyboard rather than fat finger syndrome)...but I kept it in as I thought it was funny...the Cyogenmob should replace team douche IMHO!
Wow, didn't realise how long it was...out of interest has anyone actually read the whole thing !?
Yeah, I read it and agree to some extent.
While what he did was wrong, he shouldn't be banned for it. I do not know all the circumstances around it but from what I read it appears he made sense UI for the Nexus one?
I believe that cyanogen is becoming more and more powerful as a body and it is starting to strong arm others when they believe they are in the wrong. I don't understand why people should shunned as he was simply because he didn't give due credit. From seeing all these devs get the boot from websites because they didn't give all the sources for their work. This is a major hinderance from some people wanting to develop new ROMs. I mean it seems that some people want to get credit for what they did and want to have the fame of what they developed, and not just because they wanted to further the development of phones and custom ROMS.
Some people may not agree with my stance, but I just think you give people another chance for slip ups like that one and not just a boot with no questions asked.
The problem is NOT just using other people work with/without permission...
The problem is cheating the users to get more donations:
Example:
-DevA: Oh, i've been 3 nights compiling the code for you all!!!!
-Users: Ohhh, thankyou, gonna donate for your hard work!!!
-DevA: Ok, here you have the link (and the download is from DevB work with a little text-editor touch-up).
That's not the way of doing things (imho)
sorry but no. the proper way is
devA: "i took all of jubeh's work and 'optimized a text file' and uploaded it, pretty awesome right?"
you: "cool story bro"
devA: "i need a new phone"
you: "im poor but wth if you keep not making your own work and ask for donations"
devA: "ya rly"
you: "maybe i should've donated to the guy that made this all and not the one that file pushed the wifi files over... =("
wow lets have some proof of this please and i quote "Cyanogen is well known for donating, as is kingklick" we know cyan does but prove king does if not take the statement out
If King put in the same amount of effort HazzBazz put in to creating this thread/writing that ever so long first post, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But really, did we need another thread on this topic ? I lost track but theres been atleast 10+ threads discussing this and all resulting in a lock/user under investigation.
See guys no one from cm contributors told anyone bout banning kk but yes every one was angry that he never gave credit to anyone. We told him a hundred time already to give credit. I don't know if bbannin does justice here but still he violated a lot of rules. He never released his kernel source. Never gave credits for others hard work. Bout drizzy he got banned for scamming a user. It's not winrar but winzip Get ur facts right. We r talking bout crediting the work of the community. If u do something spending day n night on expecting nothing but some respect or credit for ur work u get angry in ur language doing 1 month job n not getting paid. I would recommend u all try contributing before writing such justifications n flames n more. So kingklick was wrong n given many warnings before being banned. He was not a bad dev or something but as I told u reward for a contributor is credits. Bout donating I guess from tomorrow I'll start packaging cm froyo nightlys change the name of the Rom post it n start asking for donations. I'll even put some unicorns n ponies in it for u guys so it ismagical. N if u thing stuff can be fixed without the source u r wrong. For fixing 99% percent of stuff u need to know how to work with source n compile. Rest 1% are silver by pushing files. And again no one from cm asked any mod to ban him. It was their internal decision. There was no influence whatsoever
And one more thing. U all remember Eugene whom u all made run away from magic n dream. He even caught kingklick using his work by adding a coded name oc the Rom that clearly said Eugene n this made king cry. He started accepting he used Eugene work then more proofs came in of he just changing build.prop n posting as his
Hey guys seriously, i spent like all weekend making a site for you to help hax your phones. bandwidth is expensive, so please donate to me!!!!!!! if you like all the work i put into this. you can check my site out at: http://forum.xda-developers.com and if it helps you out, please buy my a nexus. thanks and i'm still here
enatefox said:
Hey guys seriously, i spent like all weekend making a site for you to help hax your phones. bandwidth is expensive, so please donate to me!!!!!!! if you like all the work i put into this. you can check my site out at: http://forum.xda-developers.com and if it helps you out, please buy my a nexus. thanks and i'm still here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I lawl'd.
I don't have enough money for my family, but you can have some. Where's your donate link you hard worker?
tl;dr
enatefox said:
Hey guys seriously, i spent like all weekend making a site for you to help hax your phones. bandwidth is expensive, so please donate to me!!!!!!! if you like all the work i put into this. you can check my site out at: http://forum.xda-developers.com and if it helps you out, please buy my a nexus. thanks and i'm still here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn man, that site is stupid fast
Im poor and living on the streets but i cant imagine how much work it must've been. Im donating to u
AnderWeb said:
The problem is NOT just using other people work with/without permission...
The problem is cheating the users to get more donations:
Example:
-DevA: Oh, i've been 3 nights compiling the code for you all!!!!
-Users: Ohhh, thankyou, gonna donate for your hard work!!!
-DevA: Ok, here you have the link (and the download is from DevB work with a little text-editor touch-up).
That's not the way of doing things (imho)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kingklick developed a fanbase. If they donated is that a crime? He didn't hold for ransom, he just released work without due credit, perhaps mostly someone else's work (havent seen evidence) and hey I put a paper out last term without my complete bibliography done because I was so excited to get it out and I was going away for a week...I finished it off over the break and put it out when I was back, funny that didn't start a war on the internet.
enatefox said:
sorry but no. the proper way is
devA: "i took all of jubeh's work and 'optimized a text file' and uploaded it, pretty awesome right?"
you: "cool story bro"
devA: "i need a new phone"
you: "im poor but wth if you keep not making your own work and ask for donations"
devA: "ya rly"
you: "maybe i should've donated to the guy that made this all and not the one that file pushed the wifi files over... =("
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like how you're not using any form of personal attack in discussing this issue...give me an example of when kingklick asked asked for donations...theyre just appreciated. And hell did Jubreh give credit to ALL the people who helped him...Linus Torvalds etc? No, so we are all in part imperfect for not giving 'full credit'...call me anal or not.
Daneshm90 said:
If King put in the same amount of effort HazzBazz put in to creating this thread/writing that ever so long first post, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But really, did we need another thread on this topic ? I lost track but theres been atleast 10+ threads discussing this and all resulting in a lock/user under investigation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of them were philosophical...Ive just finished my second year on joint honours in Philosophy so I find it interesting...and it's not exactly an effort to pile out this when I did it all through term time anyway.
charnsingh_online said:
It's not winrar but winzip Get ur facts right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL I guess that makes me an invalid...nice
charnsingh_online said:
We r talking bout crediting the work of the community. If u do something spending day n night on expecting nothing but some respect or credit for ur work u get angry in ur language doing 1 month job n not getting paid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well uhhhh no its not because you expect to be paid for your job, and in fact you have legal rights ...open source developing is COMPLETELY different
charnsingh_online said:
I would recommend u all try contributing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True yeah we should all try it...I'm hoping to do computer science post-grad if I get a first...but we dont all have the time or the expertise. I do some file pushing for myself, but I dont release it because if I did (despite getting my roms running fast and to my liking) I'd get slated by some snooty coders and fanboys.
charnsingh_online said:
before writing such justifications n flames n more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nb. see lack of flaming...
charnsingh_online said:
It was their internal decision. There was no influence whatsoever
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try twitter.com and look at a lot of members of Cyanogenmob's (still sticking by that, will use that in non-derogatory circumstances, still revelling in the typo!) tweets.
And hey if kingklick can deliver to the end users then there's no use slagging him off...youre equally insulting anyone that thought his roms were good. His slide rom has so much positive feedback for instance.
JAguirre1231 said:
I lawl'd.
I don't have enough money for my family, but you can have some. Where's your donate link you hard worker?
tl;dr
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Daneshm90 said:
Damn man, that site is stupid fast
Im poor and living on the streets but i cant imagine how much work it must've been. Im donating to u
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yay mock donators now too.
HazzBazz, since you're gonna be like this here goes:
We all know the kangers. They're everywhere from your local grocer to the bus driver. Yes, kangers live peacefully among us. What you didn't know is that the real issue, for me at least, is that when I had my old Windows phone w/Android ported on it, we would bust our asses off (look at the Vogue thread) and people would micro-manage or "release" our work as theirs. Basically we would bust our asses off for free (never have I ever asked for a donation nor have I received a single penny for my time) and these people would zip it up and host it on their own site and build a fan base.
Ok so what right? well the people that post in those threads then have bugs to report. who do they report them too? the guy that said he made the ROM-- not us. he says "lolz i don't know guys" then we fix it then he gets thanked. then, he gets the donation. it pisses me off and I never got paid. imagine the unemployed devs out there.
You can at least see my point, right?
F'sure. Hence why I dont release anything. But to you guys kangers are pests. I do not doubt that kangers should be policed. However the credit issue is something which is neglected at a small level by everyone, so no one is perfect...and the great thing about a big site like xda is that most kangers on other websites have tiny fanbases.
I respect your work because of its own credence, and plagiarism will sure as hell piss anyone off who puts time into things, but we must remember that these are donations, given freely. I think we should do more to inform the 'end users' than ban and drive away devs who deliver what some users want...albeit with some undue credit (inform..allow the end users to make informed decisions).
HazzBazz said:
Kingklick developed a fanbase. If they donated is that a crime? He didn't hold for ransom, he just released work without due credit, perhaps mostly someone else's work (havent seen evidence)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will stop you there as the rest of what you say is boring.
Oh and use the search button or cache on google to find(as you call it) evidence
Have a Nice Day
If you like my work, buy bill gates a stuffed penguin.
Love it yeah. Your logical, fair and anticipatory argument leaves me speechless.
'Rest of what you say is boring'...darn I'm upset and speechless...that hurts. It's like Primary school bullies here, only fails.
With regard to 'haven't seen evidence'...I wasn't saying kingklick did or did not do that or this...Im simply saying I (personally) havent seen the evidence (not because it doesn't exist or does exist), but ultimately Kingklick was found guilty of using someone else's work without saying please and thankyou, and was hence driven away from us.
I will be hated on, but I don't care. Bring the King back. I love his Desire Sense UI ROM's.
I seen this in my Twitter feed and figured I'd share it here. It's the story of cm. How it all started..really investing stuff. He also talks about launching an cm installer that will be available in the play store in the next few weeks. Check it out and show your support people!
http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/a_new_chapter
Sent from my Nexus 4 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
this is from G+, from the developer of Focal, and why a bunch of contributors/developers for cm are upset about the whole thing..
Guillaume Lesniak originally shared:
I remained silent about the whole Focal relicensing troubles for now. There was a lot of drama between the app being GPL, and the fact Cyanogen Inc wanted to use it, which drove some frustration between me, some CM contributors, and CM leaders. As a result, to avoid any problem, Focal has been removed from CyanogenMod. I think you deserve explanations and “behind the scenes” view on how all of this happened, and to know it’s not just a last-minute decision or ragequit.
This is the true, fully-featured story of the “Focal drama”. It's not a rant about how Cyanogen Inc is bad or anything (and it can be a good thing, with a few conditions, see at the end of the post), but just an insight on how this all happened, and how some people were and are feeling.
A few months ago, I decided to work on an app to replace AOSP’s Camera app after +Steve Kondik expressed concerns about the camera experience on CyanogenMod in a G+ post. I decided to take the challenge, and build up a camera app that would be up with users’ expectations: accessible and innovative UI, but fully-featured.
You all know how that worked out - the app has been out for some time now. I’ve been keeping the “internal” CM team (read: the CyanogenMod Dev private G+ group) tuned with my progress, releasing them mockups, screenshots and videos of the progress. Luckily, nobody ever leaked what it was, even with the big storm we started with the Nemesis trailer.
A few days before we started organizing Focal’s launch, I was approached by +Koushik Dutta and +Steve Kondik . They wanted to talk to me about CyanogenMod’s future developments, that sounded cool. Koush told me in a video chat Cyanogen’s plans since he left Samsung: they found investors, and they’re ready to push forward Cyanogen Inc, a company selling services for CyanogenMod. At first, that sounded amazing, getting a few bucks for working on something I’ve been doing for free for some time. That would allow the student I am to get some stuff and get a kickstart for my future life. That would have given me the chance to spend more time on CM, as I wouldn't need to work elsewhere. Now, I didn’t have much information about what were Cyanogen Inc plans to make money, but I expected it to be through some kind of services - koush told me about CMID, which later became CMAccount, or other premium things like a one-click installer, or even a CMPhone. That sounded like a nice addition to CyanogenMod, leaving the community intact, and adding more value to the software distribution.
I had a similar chat with Steve, where he explained me some of the other aspects of Cyanogen Inc, his philosophy about it, etc. Okay, that sounds like a good plan, get me involved and enhance the open distribution I know and love. I have a few emails back and forth between Steve, Koush and me, talking about what I could work on, what I could enhance on Focal, etc. They’re telling me they’re looking into contracts, and I wait.
That’s when the “drama” started.
I got a Hangouts chat from Koush, saying that Focal would need to be relicensed because GPL isn’t ideal -- wait what, not ideal for an Open Source project?
“The issue is that we need to be able to relicense it”
“It’ll be open as GPL, but CM can do what they want with it.”
Yes, Cyanogen Inc. will need to do changes in CyanogenMod’s source code - because here’s another way they will finance the project: customization for their customers (e.g. carriers). This will imply the work done by the community will be sold to a third party by Cyanogen Inc, and that they have to do changes that they cannot put online publicly. A future conversation with Steve Kondik will reveal that they might need to put hardware-specific enhancement for some camera devices, and that has to be hacked in the Camera app code. Putting these changes inside Camera apps instead of Hardware Abstraction Layers (HAL) could break other apps, which ironically kind of go against the goal of CTS (because then, only the “official” camera app will have those enhancements). Of course, those hardware enhancements are trade secrets, so they cannot be published back to CyanogenMod’s public repositories...
So this is where I started to feel screwed. I didn’t think much further, but I felt like I had no other choice but comply with Cyanogen’s relicensing, and allow them to do whatever they want with my code, and sell it customized to their vendors. They used the Contributor License Agreement as an argument, saying that basically they could do anything with my code since I submitted it.
At the same time, the “cyngn.com” domain was discovered, and concerns rised about what the hell it was. People such as pulser_g2 started to find connections between Cyngn.com, Kirt McMaster, Steve Kondik, Koushik Dutta, and all these people working at a “secret company” in a “secret location”. From ways I cannot even explain, he was able to come up with everything Koush and Steve told me, how they’d make money, and what are their future plans. Since he already knew everything, I told him about what was going on with Focal licensing, and he came up with the fact that this wasn’t legally right: the software is licensed as GPL, the repository on CyanogenMod’s github is forked from my GitHub, so it didn’t go through the Contributor License Agreement (which only applies to Gerrit submissions), and the Berne convention can prove through the commits history that I did fully write the app, and not Cyanogen Inc. - and even if the CLA would apply, it only allows them to sublicense the software, not relicense or dual-license it without my permission.
I didn’t want to be a jerk on that licensing story, and went ahead to resolve the issue directly in private with Steve. At the same time, other people such as Andrew Dodd (Entropy512) beginned to hear echoes about something was going on with Cyanogen, and heard about the GPL licensing issues around the time Land of Droid revealed the connections. He got really upset about that, getting only silence or vague answers from CM leads, turning around sentences.
That’s where they started lying to the community, denying they had something to do with cyngn.com, denying there was a commercialization of CyanogenMod going on. When people said “Why would Focal get relicensed?” they would just say “No, it’s not relicensed. It will stay GPL.” - yes, that’s where “relicense” became “dual-license”, where the app would remain GPL publicly, but still allow Cyanogen Inc to do what they want with it. But they didn't mention that publicly.
pulser_g2 raised some points on an XDA post that became quite famous, quoted by some news websites, and raised to the attention of some CM leads.
The official answer was: “Don’t interfere, don’t reply, let it go”
So, they didn’t confirm or infirm that CyanogenMod was or was not going commercial. If it wasn’t going commercial, they would have denied it. But here, they ask to “let it go”. Why not tell the truth? For them, it was better to just sweep it under the rug. But who was right in the end?
At that point in time, I still had no news about the contracts I was meant to receive weeks ago for working with Cyanogen Inc on Focal. I pinged ciwrl, who told me to check with koush, who told me to check with Steve, who didn’t reply.
At that time, they also started scrapping features from CyanogenMod. Device’s “Advanced settings” disappeared, without getting a proper replacement first. Some features aren't considered as useful enough, and didn’t make it into the new CMHW HAL. Even if users want something, they won’t get it if it’s not useful enough. Save to external SD disappeared as well from the AOSP Camera app, because it breaks Google’s CTS. Root access is planned to be COMPLETELY removed by default, and to be downloaded in a separate package. Users don’t use root anyway, they say. All of this because of a future CyanogenMod Phone, which has to pass CTS to get Google Apps officially. Want some exotic features? Too bad. You won’t get them if Google don’t. Wasn’t that the point of CyanogenMod originally? Derp.
That’s when my concerns started to raise about the community contributions. People such as +Nebojša Cvetković contributed a lot of features to CyanogenMod’s launcher “Trebuchet”, and felt bad about not getting any reward for his work, when Cyanogen Inc. would make money out of it. Same concerns were raised by other maintainers and developers who contribute, or used to contribute to CyanogenMod. It was the last bit required for multiple people to leave the CyanogenMod development community, or for some users to simply stop using CyanogenMod. They didn’t know exactly what Cyanogen Inc was up to, but since the leaders would just lie to them to hide the truth, they felt let down. And it was clear from my chats with Steve that they had no ideas or plans, besides contracting everyone, to reward contributors. But they cannot just contract everyone, like nebkat as he’s not old enough yet to have a contract. Some other people just don’t want to be contracted, but still want to get a reward. It’s only recently that I told Steve that people would be totally happy with some perks (computer stuff, t-shirts, usb drives, devices for big contributors, etc.), and it seems like he didn’t think about that at first.
This continued for some time, until now. Cyanogen Inc is now public, and they revealed (part of) their plans for the near future. And a sentence struck me on most news sites that relayed the news: they talk about “Cyanogen’s new Camera app” -- what WHAT? So it’s Cyanogen’s camera app now? It not a CONTRIBUTION anymore?! - They claim it's their app, and I still had no news about the whole licensing thing, even if I had the chance to raise the point a few times.
This was too much this time - I pulled the alarm. I first contacted +Abhisek Devkota on why it was phrased this way, to be welcomed with a “You submitted it…” … Uhm, no, but he wasn’t going to argue with me, and told me to see that with Steve, which I did. After some chat, explaining how he could reward nebkat and other contributors, he told me that he was still waiting on me to “list my pricing, features and milestones for Focal” -- which I did, back on July 23rd. I never had any answer, seemingly because the “Focal drama started” and he got frustrated. From there, it seemed like Steve just wanted to stop dealing with it because “this is too much drama”. The exact drama part that bothers him? Well, some contributors weren’t happy about what Cyanogen Inc is. +Andrew Dodd really insisted and wanted to have explanations on WHY Focal would need to be relicensed, and why all this secrecy, without any real answer ever.
And how does Steve deals with these kind of reactions now? Easy answer:
“Oh god please tell me the story. grabs popcorn” https://plus.google.com/u/0/101093310520661581786/posts/1ev1FJpSCE3
Well, here’s your story. And here’s how they treat huge contributors like Andrew, who aren’t big enough and don’t open their mouth with the right people. The most ironical thing? If they want to dual-license, it is to make non-open changes to the apps. So, we’ll need CyanogenMod for the CyanogenMod Phone, because the code shipping on the device won’t match the public code.
Steve’s argument to avoid rewarding people, is that people wants to be “retroactively paid” - but he doesn’t seem to understand that people contributed when CyanogenMod was still a project all about open source, that wasn’t removing features from the ROM, and that had no commercial intentions. Nebkat contributed a lot of stuff in the Launcher, which is a central component of CyanogenMod today. But he did it a few months ago, “before” Cyanogen Inc, so he doesn’t deserve anything. But Cyanogen Inc can sell it to his customers.
Entropy512 wanted to clarify that point for his situation, which is true for many other contributors: “Some people like myself contribute to the project to keep our minds sharp and it's rewarding in and of itself. I make more than enough money in my day job. If someone is planning on creating a closed source fork, which is the only thing that dual licensing enables, it is no longer rewarding.”
Now, don't get me wrong. Cyanogen Inc is a huge milestone for CyanogenMod, and I can only applaud Steve for the initiative and being able to get there. There are not only dark points with the company, far from that. There’s a big bright side: CyanogenMod will become more stable, and will eventually get more features (even if they’re not going to do anything against CTS). Device support might get enhanced, since they’re paid to work on it now (even if issues existing for a LONG time aren’t fixed). And users maybe will get official support.
But the community can feel let down at some point. People from external ROMs would have loved to contribute back to CM at some point. However when Cyanogen’s leaders refers to Paranoid Android or AOKP, they call it “that other ROM”. Steve, always saying “Go ahead and fork”, isn’t actually taking seriously contributions from other developers. And since external contributors know their contributions are going to be ignored, they just don’t submit anything.
I could go on and on with many other things, how the code review is done (or rather, not done), how submissions are just -2’d without explanations, how they criticize XDA users (yes, where ¾ of their user base come from), how they complain people don’t contribute, when they DID but the patch was ignored because the maintainer didn’t want it at that time, how unstable devices are tagged as RC/stable (without asking their maintainers ; Netflix won’t run on a “stable” build of CM for exynos devices), etc. But I’m not here for that.
At this point, on my end the issue is solved, Focal is pulled from CyanogenMod. It wasn't a last minute decision, it wasn't just because I discovered it just now. It's something that has been running for around two months, and the solution was only found yesterday after a long discussion, and because it had to be stopped quickly.
I will keep on improving the app, fixing bugs, and make it better. If it’s not in CyanogenMod, then it will find room in another ROM. The app is GPL, and I will put it up on the Play Store at some point.
I have plans to raise the awareness of the importance of Open Source, and how GPL doesn't prevent any paid work, and that that there are easy ways to keep the community happy with such a situation.
And at the same time, I wish the best to Cyanogen Inc.
Keep in mind: CyanogenMod wouldn’t be what it is today without its contributors. If you’re able to run CyanogenMod on your device today, it might not be only thanks to Steve, Koushik or Ricardo. There are hundreds of people behind them who pushed many patches, and enabled many devices as a hobby. Have you ever heard of them?
Show less
73
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should be interesting on how all this will play out....
Can't wait for the phones...
The ironic thing is that if CM really does start putting out phones there is a decent chance that they'll be the only devices guaranteed NOT to be supproted by CM as we currently think of it today. Can you imagine CM posting links to how to root these devices, or pointing to drivers/etc so that you can build your own CM variants for them?
I really do hope that this doesn't turn out to be the case, but one of the downsides to an aftermarket project "going mainstream" is that it often results in a product that isn't really any better than the products it previously sought to replace.
I would love to try Focal sans CM...looking forward to it!
wideasleep1 said:
I would love to try Focal sans CM...looking forward to it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Play store. Focal (Beta). Would post a link, but I'm on my phone. Works just as good as the version previously bundled in cm.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.xplod.focal
wideasleep1 said:
I would love to try Focal sans CM...looking forward to it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tvall said:
Play store. Focal (Beta). Would post a link, but I'm on my phone. Works just as good as the version previously bundled in cm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
simms22 said:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.xplod.focal
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL! Yep! I didn't hafta wait long..did I?!?!
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.xplod.focal
Team BBQ is EASY to remember!
Wow, I didn't know it was this bad.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
Daaaaaamn!
This is what happens when greed, fame and money take over your life.
https://plus.google.com/106978520009932034644/posts/L8FJkrcahPs
It's the last build of CM I've had on my phone. Going to stock ROM, and using xposed modules.
For years CM being a leader on open source. But soon as they smell money/power, it all goes downhill.
Losing freedom and features, CM will try become a mainstream ROM that carriers can buy. CM will become a Touchwiz.
With no root and extra device features, since Google won't allow it.
4+ years of tireless community work and that's all you have to say? This isn't like some typical scenario that plays perfectly in your head cause it reassures certain prejudices in your life. The leads as well as their work should have earned them some good faith.
I would like to read the story of how his original plan got clouded by money and turned a cool thing into a corporate mess.
r00t4rd3d said:
I would like to read the story of how his original plan got clouded by money and turned a cool thing into a corporate mess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Soon...
Wow, this is really weak. This sounds like Kindergarten to me.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
I'm starting to hate CM now
Honestly, it worked out how you would expect. Part of the problem is many of the people contributing are not able to be compensated by the new corporation (underage, etc). However, at the end of the day, they will get good people working for them on paid positions so you will have more consistent work I would presume. I don't think they will change their vision dramatically, so I wouldn't think they are going to completely sell out and destroy the project.
bozzykid said:
I don't think they will change their vision dramatically, so I wouldn't think they are going to completely sell out and destroy the project.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some would argue your first point has already happened and your second point is the end-game and your last point is the worst case scenario that seems more likely now than, say, July.
Folks will need to decide for themselves whether they want to ride the company train into the company town to shop at the company store. Many are already beholden to Google/Facebook/Twiiter that they'll never even notice.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
bozzykid said:
Honestly, it worked out how you would expect. Part of the problem is many of the people contributing are not able to be compensated by the new corporation (underage, etc). However, at the end of the day, they will get good people working for them on paid positions so you will have more consistent work I would presume. I don't think they will change their vision dramatically, so I wouldn't think they are going to completely sell out and destroy the project.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Despite my earlier posts, I'm willing to wait and see how things go, but MANY community-driven FOSS projects have gone through this and it rarely turns out well. It is one thing when a company starts out as a company (like MySQL) and just happens to release everything as FOSS along the way. It is another when a project starts out community-driven and tries to turn into a company, for the reason you already stated.
Healthy community projects have a very diverse set of small contributors. This means that if individuals leave or burn out there isn't a huge loss to the community. Healthy companies can really only operate if you have a small number of serious contributors. They can't pay hundreds of people, and if they paid by the patch the work just wouldn't be worth doing for the sake of the money.
Motivations for contributing to non-profits tend to be different from those for contributing to for-profits. People will just give away $200 worth of their time to a FOSS non-profit. People will usually not part with such time to benefit a for-profit unless the contribution is somehow self-serving.
The irony of this is that a successful FOSS organization that gets an infusion of cash can end up spending that money on salaries and get less labor out of the deal...
A corporate CM was bound to happen someday. Shame though. I remember reading Steve's first interviews about cm and his visions and how honorable they were. Hope the team doesn't throw it all out the window for money.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
Anti-Piracy Service/"Project Guard" [UPDATED W/ LINK TO DISABLE IT VIA XPOSED 8/16]
If you use any of the following apps:
(List Updated 8/14)
-- Freedom
-- Lucky Patcher
-- Black Mart
-- All in one Downloader
-- Get APK Market
-- CreeHack
-- Game Hacker
Either do not flash any of the ROMs in the list below which have a trojan "Anti-Piracy" Service implemented or use one_minus_one's Xposed module (link above) to disable it.
(List Updated 8/14)
-- AICP (Confirmed)
-- Exodus (Confirmed)
-- Broken OS 3.0
-- OrionLP V1.3
The devs of AICP and custom ROMs such as exodus (a new ROM based on Cyanogen from the vanir devs, that is available for klte and kltespr) and others are implementing what is effectively an Anti-Piracy trojan in their ROMs that they call "Project Guard".
Project Guard is a service that runs in the background and literally blocks you from installing the APKs associated with these apps. And it doesn't stop there. Apparently Project Guard was having talk of banning both Aptoide and XPOSED in these ROMs. Thankfully, this was voted down but Aptoide was still on the table as far as I heard last. The fact that even the idea of banning Xposed from AOSP ROMs in order to stop it's users from pirating was even discussed, is frankly surreal to me and out of control. It's shameful. Not sure why the developers felt the need to implement this trivial and easily bypassed "feature" but it goes against everything I thought the AOSP stood for. While it is easy enough to bypass this service using third party apps or a hex editor, I do not wish to support any developers that would stoop to this level of greed. If you want money for your code, I totally understand, but this is AOSP not apple and there is a time and place for everything. Please, don't take out your misplaced aggression at software pirates on the AOSP. Because, although this may be just a little bit of code to you, to me it is the beginning of the end of AOSP. If you compromise your integrity now, it's a short trip from here to bloatware with a monthly subscription fee. In a modern internet climate that is becoming increasingly controlled and corporatized, AOSP is a beacon of hope to me. A reminder that technology belongs to the many and not the few. This decision spits in the face of that hope. People will say i'm being dramatic but this is a huge deal to me and if you care about having the freedom to do what you want with your phone, which i'm pretty sure most of you do, then this should be a big deal to you too. I thought I could trust AOSP developers to do the right thing but apparently they feel that it's their place to decide which apps I can and cannot install. If you care about having the freedom to do why you wish with your phone, I urge you not to flash this ROM, or any ROM that would compromise its integrity by adding code that is meant to control its users. This is the kind of thing that made us choose AOSP in the first place. It doesn't even make logical sense to implement things like this in an open source ROM, as inevitably new versions of the ROM will be released with this ridiculous code removed. I am seriously disappointed as AICP was one of my favorite ROMs. The developers of AICP and the other affected ROMs have the right to do whatever they want(within legal boundaries) with their code as creators of intellectual property but as an AOSP user you have the right to flash a ROM with a little more integrity.
*Update 8/14*
This is directly from the Project Guard Official Github Page:
"NOTE: Please report new piracy markets and malware to me or any of the others involved with this project. Pull requests are also welcome. For ROM developers interested in using this it makes more sense to track this project directly and then bridge into an existing package with correct perms (like settings). This way any changes made here to the blacklisted packages and improvements will reach out to everyone."
This "note", written in huge font right on the Project Guard Github main page, begs the question;
So what exactly is the criteria for a "Piracy Market"?
Any market that contains software that will help or allow you to pirate software? That's my best guess at the projects aim, HOWEVER, they have provided, as far as I can tell, ZERO criteria for what constitutes a "Piracy Market". A "Piracy Market" may include Aptoide but it could also include the Google Playstore. You see the problem here? This is much too arbitrary and relative to be efficient in stopping piracy and much more likely to hurt developers, especially seeing as anyone who knows how to pirate, can also learn to bypass this service with a quick Google search. I did. What is going to happen is, legitimate software, or software that gives a user access to legitimate software, will end up being banned in these ROMs. This is a very dangerous mindset they have here. This could turn into a witch hunt or full blown technological McCarthyism.
Make no mistakes about it, as a user named "Bikas" pointed out on the OPO forums here, this is indeed a trojan.
According to wikipedia a computer trojan is defined as "any malicious computer program which misrepresent itself as useful, routine, or interesting in order to persuade a victim to install it". When someone downloads a custom ROM, especially AOSP, they assume they are gaining more freedom but in this case they are having it taken away. People trust AOSP devs and won't expect this to happen. Nobody expects to be controlled like this by a backround service in an AOSP custom ROM, therefore the entire ROM can be considered a trojan.
Wikipedia also states that if the trojan is "installed or run with elevated privileges a Trojan will generally have unlimited access. What it does with this power depends on the motives of the attacker." This also fits these ROMs. The ROMs DO have unlimited access to your phone and blocking you from installing a whole category of APKs is very malicious. In this case the "motives of the attacker" are to stop or curb piracy.
It is very clear that they,
A. Have unlimited access to your phone
B. Have clear motives
C. Are using this access without your permission to prevent you from installing apps that they have deemed "pirate markets", which is consistent with these motives.
Now ask yourself, are you okay with your ROM including a Trojan entirely based on the ROM developer's personal motives and political ideology, at the cost of your technological freedom to install whatever the hell you want? Software, especially AOSP ROMs, should be free of it's creator's bias and motives.
One more thing. It is of my opinion that the underlying reason for the creation of these "Anti-Piracy" ROMs is just money, or simply put, greed. I understand it can be frusterating when you put your blood, sweat and tears into an app or ROM and not only does nobody donate but they remove your advertisement's with an app like lucky patcher or complain that you aren't releasing nightlys often enough. I really do get that. But at the end of the day this thing is about money as virtually all "Anti-Piracy" groups, laws and efforts are. This is about forcing people to pay. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay, BUT THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO ENFORCE IT.
-- Tipsy
-- SlimLP
-- SlimSaber
-- MinimalOS
-- CyanogenMod 12.1
-- Euphoria
-- Slimremix
-- Cmremix
-- Resurrection Remix
Don't take my word for it,
READ UP!
The apps you mention these ROM developers are trying to block are all to bypass google licensing.
In effect "getting paid apps for free"...
These ROM developers may also develop apps which could require payment/donation to use..
Why should they take out their anti piracy measures? I haven't looked into these roms personally, but i'd be happy to use them if they have info messages before installation to warn of such measures.
Just my two pennies
I support Anti-piracy where time and effort has been put into apps, and these guys are just asking for small donations to use their apps
EDIT: I disagree with banning the use of xposed within their ROMS, but i agree if they just do not want to support this.
Aptoide I partially disagree due to the fact some coutries do not have access to the Google Playstore, it is down to Aptoide ti implement anti piracy measures within their store app.
Regards
f0xy said:
The apps you mention these ROM developers are trying to block are all to bypass google licensing.
In effect "getting paid apps for free"...
These ROM developers may also develop apps which could require payment/donation to use..
Why should they take out their anti piracy measures? I haven't looked into these roms personally, but i'd be happy to use them if they have info messages before installation to warn of such measures.
Just my two pennies
I support Anti-piracy where time and effort has been put into apps, and these guys are just asking for small donations to use their apps
EDIT: I disagree with banning the use of xposed within their ROMS, but i agree if they just do not want to support this.
Aptoide I partially disagree due to the fact some coutries do not have access to the Google Playstore, it is down to Aptoide ti implement anti piracy measures within their store app.
Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The biggest problem is they have no designated criteria for what apps are to be banned and what apps aren't. They just ask the general public to go and snitch on apps that they think are "pirate markets".
I also am concerned that if we compromise and allow this to be the norm then we have just set out on a path ruin. If things like this are allowed next time it WILL be closed.
As I stated above, they have the right to do whatever they want with their ROM but I have the right to not flash it and to encourage others not to in order to protect AOSP from becoming something like touchwiz.
jujijoog said:
The biggest problem is they have no designated criteria for what apps are to be banned and what apps aren't. They just ask the general public to go and snitch on apps that they think are "pirate markets".
I also am concerned that if we compromise and allow this to be the norm then we have just set out on a path ruin. If things like this are allowed next time it WILL be closed.
As I stated above, they have the right to do whatever they want with their ROM but I have the right to not flash it and to encourage others not to in order to protect AOSP from becoming something like touchwiz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without fully reading into this(no time at moment, at work! )
I can agree with your comments. Project Guard should not have the right to disallow users of roms to not run specific apps. I can understand what they are trying to do but they are going around it all the wrong ways.
I am now following the movement Anti - Contentguard
f0xy said:
The apps you mention these ROM developers are trying to block are all to bypass google licensing.
In effect "getting paid apps for free"...
These ROM developers may also develop apps which could require payment/donation to use..
Why should they take out their anti piracy measures? I haven't looked into these roms personally, but i'd be happy to use them if they have info messages before installation to warn of such measures.
Just my two pennies
I support Anti-piracy where time and effort has been put into apps, and these guys are just asking for small donations to use their apps
EDIT: I disagree with banning the use of xposed within their ROMS, but i agree if they just do not want to support this.
Aptoide I partially disagree due to the fact some coutries do not have access to the Google Playstore, it is down to Aptoide ti implement anti piracy measures within their store app.
Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
f0xy said:
Without fully reading into this(no time at moment, at work! )
I can agree with your comments. Project Guard should not have the right to disallow users of roms to not run specific apps. I can understand what they are trying to do but they are going around it all the wrong ways.
I am now following the movement Anti - Contentguard
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. I am not speaking out against Anti-Piracy, to do so would be to speak out against a persons right to intellectual property and capitalism as a whole really. I am speaking out against the intrusive method and implementation of Project Guard.
The main thing that concerns me on this matter is the fact that I like to try apps before I buy them. If the app is crap then I just uninstall it and don't worry with it after that. Some apps in the app store, and I have had problems with this, do not allow refunds once purchased. It is frustrating some times to just have nothing but screen shots that look awesome and a video that looks great, but you are the first one that sees the app and you buy it to only find out that it is nothing like described. I do personal ROM development from time to time and I would never allow anything like this in anything I do. It takes away from everything that is Linux. And yes android is Linux/UNIX based, so therefore should not be restricted as such. That is why Google implemented software that checks for pirated apps and won't allow you to use them if it sees certain checks that not even lucky patcher can bypass. My personal opinion on this matter is that there might be other reasons behind this code. If you analyze the code to be implemented, you will notice it connects to a server for verification of new apps added that are considered to be piracy apps and also to confirm the currently installed database. I know that some hackers use this type of ploy to gain access to your personal information because any time that you connect to a server with an app with full access to your device it can essentially get all the information saved on your device regardless of how secure you think it is. So keep that on mind. Take a look at their code on github and see for yourself.
Sent from my klte using Tapatalk
How will this effect folks in countries that crack down on the free flow of information like here in the US? Think it's more about control than it is money...ooopps, my bad, no such thing as money just notes. Imagine being paid in debt instruments for your labor, oh wait we already do and we love it; suckers!!
Prison Planet peace out!
This is epic!
The time you have spent to make this post was more than enough to learn how to compile rom from source and build it without this so called Trojan that helps the app devs.
And if we added a Trojan, you wouldn't even know it
@jujijoog
You are totaly right. How can the devs only dare, trying to protect us against breaking the laws rules.
What those piracy apps does is simply stealing.
You are taking someones right for money.
This is simply an anti-thief prevention.
Now ask yourself. Is it okay to steal things. Is it okay to steal money?
You say, they have clear motives.
So you have.
When your "freedom" is about stealing, i hope you end up in jail.
Sincerely,
mono
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=62363666
no more and no less
HGT - S5 G900F - ONEPLUS ONE - TESLA TTL7 - Windows 10
---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------
A page for thieves, nice.
HGT - S5 G900F - ONEPLUS ONE - TESLA TTL7 - Windows 10
Again in plain text
Tell me an app which does not have full access to my phone,
1, SuperSU and all Google Apps, then Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber and so on.
Each shi... app has access if they want to. Your argument is not an argument.
I'm more afraid of Google + + + and stolen apps as of the Anti Piracy code.
many Problems come from Google
http://blog.exodusintel.com/2015/08/13/stagefright-mission-accomplished/
LorD ClockaN said:
The time you have spent to make this post was more than enough to learn how to compile rom from source and build it without this so called Trojan that helps the app devs.
And if we added a Trojan, you wouldn't even know it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well if you read my post you would understand that I'm not concerned about bypassing content guard. In fact i made it painfully obvious when I stated how easy it is to do just that, in the first paragraph....
What I am concerned about is compromising the integrity of AOSP.
One thing you cannot argue is that this is a precedent and I fear that this precedent has "awakened a sleeping giant" and could be the catalyst for something much worse. I'm not going to re-explain myself because you were either too lazy to read my whole post or too ignorant to comprehend it.
monochro100 said:
@jujijoog
You are totaly right. How can the devs only dare, trying to protect us against breaking the laws rules.
What those piracy apps does is simply stealing.
You are taking someones right for money.
This is simply an anti-thief prevention.
Now ask yourself. Is it okay to steal things. Is it okay to steal money?
You say, they have clear motives.
So you have.
When your "freedom" is about stealing, i hope you end up in jail.
Sincerely,
mono
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You hope I end up in jail because I have a philosophical disagreement about what open source ROM content should be? Calm down bro.
And you are god damn right I have clear motives.
Talk about stating the obvious, LOL.
It's not like I pretended this was an unbiased research post.
My freedom is not about stealing, its about not having code in my ROM that does nothing for me but control me.
Content guard has the potential to stop much more than pirating.
It is already blocking access to legitimate apps and apps that provide access to legitimate apps.
I HAVE STATED BEFORE THAT I AM NOT OPPOSING ANTI-PIRACY MEASURES AS A WHOLE I AM PROTESTING THIS PARTICULAR METHOD OF ANTI-PIRACY IMPLEMENTATION AS I THINK IT IS DANGEROUS.
HorstiG said:
Again in plain text
Tell me an app which does not have full access to my phone,
1, SuperSU and all Google Apps, then Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber and so on.
Each shi... app has access if they want to. Your argument is not an argument.
I'm more afraid of Google + + + and stolen apps as of the Anti Piracy code.
many Problems come from Google
http://blog.exodusintel.com/2015/08/13/stagefright-mission-accomplished/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a ridiculous argument because although those apps have full access to your phone, NONE OF THEM DO ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO AS MALICIOUS AS CONTENT GUARD! Super SU simply gives the user privileges while Content Guard takes them away. To compare them in this way is frankly hilarious as they are actually great examples of a polar opposites.
Wow this is the best you Pro Content-Guard types got?
Can someone who has actually graduated from high school please come at me?
@jujijoog
You're a pompous ass and an instigator to theft, no more and no less.
I hope the post is closed here
HorstiG said:
@jujijoog
You're a pompous ass and an instigator to theft, no more and no less.
I hope the post is closed here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How am I an instigator to theft because I oppose the implementation of some code that I believe could cause AOSP to lose integrity and worsen? How many times do I have to say that I am not defending pirating software nor am I helping to do so. I may be helping to throw up road blocks to measures against it but even that I doubt as there was an exposed module made completely independent of my influence as well as several methods developed for bypassing content guard before I even knew it existed. What im getting at is that regardless of what I say or do content guard would have been made useless. Its the unintended side effects I'm worried about. The people behind this project were discussing banning xposed as a way of stopping a bypass. If they are willing to do something that damaging to the xda community then they are a problem. Do you not agree?
Do you think xposed should be banned? Really? Did you even read my post? What are you even reacting to, what you are saying makes no sense in the context of my post. I think by "you are a pompous ass", what you really meant was "I don't understand your post because I'm ignorant and that makes me insecure, scared and upset". Why would my post be b&? What possible reason would a mod find to b& my post. As far as I know XDA isn't in the business of censorship. I'm sure you would love to be though. You're the one that's more likely to get banned for name calling. Grow up.
What's up with all the name calling? If you don't agree with me then explain why as any intelligent, respectable adult would, this isn't a YouTube comment section.
LorD ClockaN said:
The time you have spent to make this post was more than enough to learn how to compile rom from source and build it without this so called Trojan that helps the app devs.
And if we added a Trojan, you wouldn't even know it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By the way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth? When did I say this was helping app devs? Although its irresponsible of the app devs to agree to implement this I am not under the illusion that content guard was created by them. Its clear who is ultimately behind this and its not the app devs. However any app dev that allows this becomes, in their passivity, an agent of negative change to the whole Android dev scene. And I didn't know you added this until it blocked my install. All Trojans become apparent after they execute their malicious intent, with the exception of like a data mining trojan so I'm not sure what you mean?
P.S Funny you should mention I actually am working on a ROM right now. When I drop it I'll shoot you a link.
People just aren't wanting to listen. They aren't realizing the full affect this is going to have on the community. The devs working on getting xposed to work well with 5.1 are busting their butts to make it work and then someone comes along and tries to restrict the use of our ROMs. No where has anyone said that they are supporting piracy. You don't need apps like blackmart alpha, aptoid or anything of such to get free apps. If someone were to support piracy, then it is up to that individual. Like we say in the military, to each his own. Like I have said before, since this connects to a server for checks, we don't know what all it is capable of. And none of this " well facebook and other apps do the same thing and could do more damage! ". Yes we all know this, but there is a catch to that argument ..... We choose to install that software and understand the risk. They are not forced upon us or hidden like a piece of Turkey jerky mixed with beef. And from my understanding this code is going to be hidden in settings as well.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk
What difference is this privacy guard going to make. People will just Google apks instead. I can't see where this is going. And this xposed module is made.
This is exactly the like of the story of the BPI. Greedy people trying to monopolise the market. What happened to AOSP's freedom. Well people have gone round the privacy measures.
Let's say Google Play doesn't allow an app for instance Adaway. Where am I going to get it officially? From their site or a market he uploads it to. There are genuine apps on there which are because of Google's terms. Most of them are pirated (which I don't condom at all).
With these new rules go ahead and block Google Play. There are unmonitored apps on there which can allow you to download music. Why can't you? Oh yeah, the greed.
I'm pretty sure this is a evasion of the users privacy. Even Windows 10 allowed you to change default settings and stop feedback; this change would be illegal which is why Windows 7 came with a browser choice update to allow other browser vendors.
Yup roms with this content guard BREAKS THE GPL. You cannot upload roms on XDA which break GPL [emoji12]
XDA_h3n said:
What difference is this privacy guard going to make. People will just Google apks instead. I can't see where this is going. And this xposed module is made.
This is exactly the like of the story of the BPI. Greedy people trying to monopolise the market. What happened to AOSP's freedom. Well people have gone round the privacy measures.
Let's say Google Play doesn't allow an app for instance Adaway. Where am I going to get it officially? From their site or a market he uploads it to. There are genuine apps on there which are because of Google's terms. Most of them are pirated (which I don't condom at all).
With these new rules go ahead and block Google Play. There are unmonitored apps on there which can allow you to download music. Why can't you? Oh yeah, the greed.
I'm pretty sure this is a evasion of the users privacy. Even Windows 10 allowed you to change default settings and stop feedback; this change would be illegal which is why Windows 7 came with a browser choice update to allow other browser vendors.
Yup roms with this content guard BREAKS THE GPL. You cannot upload roms on XDA which break GPL [emoji12]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said my friend. People don't really think about that kind of stuff usually though. That's how privacy guard came about. Lol
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk
XDA_h3n said:
What difference is this privacy guard going to make. People will just Google apks instead. I can't see where this is going. And this xposed module is made.
This is exactly the like of the story of the BPI. Greedy people trying to monopolise the market. What happened to AOSP's freedom. Well people have gone round the privacy measures.
Let's say Google Play doesn't allow an app for instance Adaway. Where am I going to get it officially? From their site or a market he uploads it to. There are genuine apps on there which are because of Google's terms. Most of them are pirated (which I don't condom at all).
With these new rules go ahead and block Google Play. There are unmonitored apps on there which can allow you to download music. Why can't you? Oh yeah, the greed.
I'm pretty sure this is a evasion of the users privacy. Even Windows 10 allowed you to change default settings and stop feedback; this change would be illegal which is why Windows 7 came with a browser choice update to allow other browser vendors.
Yup roms with this content guard BREAKS THE GPL. You cannot upload roms on XDA which break GPL [emoji12]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well its definitely an invasion of privacy as far as im concerned but what constitutes an invasion of privacy is a matter of perspective. Do you think it is possible that content guard technically breaks any of googles TOS or possibly even privacy laws? Im not too familiar with legislation like this if it does exist. Much of the post 9/11 legislation has been aimed at making things like content guard more legal unfortunately. Several people I mentioned this to on another forum I frequent pointed out the windows 10 connection. Everyone agreed that content guard is a much more malicious implementation of Anti-Piracy code. You are right, people will just google or torrent apks, that is until Content Guard 2.0 blocks the installation of sideloaded apps, xposed and Installation of all apks via ADB (Just Kidding).
Edit: I just notice the last line about GPL. I had missed that. Is that true or are you just being facetious?
lunerceli said:
Well said my friend. People don't really think about that kind of stuff usually though. That's how privacy guard came about. Lol
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im honestly kind of shocked that more people dont see, or at least care about the possible negative implications of something like this. I figured on a forum like XDA, support for an anti content guard movement would be mostly unanimous but it seems to be pretty well devided which actually makes things a little more interesting.