HTC's delays in releasing Linux source code are unacceptable | Hacker News Reader

HTC's delays in releasing Linux source code are unacceptable

laforge.gnumonks.org

148 pointsgnufs25 comments

What's especially interesting about the HTC case is that they'll habitually trot out the 120 days claim (up from 90 days a year ago) right up until the point where you actually start threatening legal action, at which point the source will usually suddenly appear on their website. The impression I get is that their delaying is nothing to do with any technical requirements on their end - it's purely to keep the source private for longer out of some kind of desire for competitive advantage.

This would be a perfect opportunity to get some lawyers in a room and try to use the DMCA, son-of-SOPA (whatever passes), etc and try to bludgeon copyleft infringers with the new IP-is-our-god-now laws. Especially if they're using a website to distribute binaries without source - start sending takedown notices

I've used the DMCA against GPL infringers (including the MPAA) - it generally does work in terms of stopping further distribution, but it rarely results in you getting the source code. The MPAA, for instance, never came into compliance. They just stopped distributing.

Or, at least, stopped distributing publicly. For all you know, they continue to distribute the toolkit in question privately, to people who don't bother asking for source.

That said, I did find the DMCA application in question highly satisfying. Thanks for that. :)

This is sort of an aside but what of anything of real value is in these source code releases other than things that would only apply to HTC phones? Just curious if there is anything in these patches that would apply to linux in general.

Not really no, most of it is Android's + Qualcomm's modifications (which are usually public and easily available).

However, there are some HTC hardware-specific parts that are used mostly and needed by any serious third party android distribution (like CyanogenMod).

This is the problem with any license, contract, or other formal agreement. It can say whatever, and one party or the other can simply ignore it. You have to take them to court to force compliance, and since it's a civil matter you have to pay your lawyers to do that.

It's the same technique insurance companies use to deny claims: they know you will have to sue them to get them to pay, and this is so expensive and takes so long that a lot of people will just give up.

2-3 years ago I've been an huge HTC fan buying every 6 months a new HTC handset until I realized that they want you to buy new handsets all the time with their business model, Sense and reluctant update policy. The rest of the crowd (Sony, Motorola, etc.) isn't better but the case HTC feels shady—these guys shotgun tons of new phones per quarter to the market with many many variations of Sense, their drivers, witholding sources, etc. to make it impossible to update their crappy phones.

As a data point, I can add that I bought an HTC HD2 back in December 2009. It had come out a couple of months before, and the hardware was very nice - it stayed at the top until this year. However the software was Win Mobile 6.5; it was occasionally updated, but the updates page went away (in a 404 way) back in October 2011 or so.

So, about two years, and gone. Not quite fly-by-night, but not too satisfactory.

(Workaround: using the original OS as bootloader to an Android from XDA-developers ...)

This is a perfect example of the Free Software movement's lack of teeth. Even if they do manage to get the money together to sue HTC, the company will have no problem demonstrating the type of bureaucratic structure that would make source code take four months to be released.

It really doesn't matter what bureaucratic structure they claim. If they say it'll take four months to release the source code, fine, wait four months to release the binaries then.

GPL enforcement is a lot of work with expensive lawyers and made harder when you are not the copyright holder.

hint: this is why the FSF require copyright assignment for their project. But they have barely any on the Linux kernel, the principal matter in the Android source code.

Harald owns the copyright for significant part of netfilter/iptables. So if they distribute this part of the kernel, he won't have much trouble.

But he is mostly alone on it, so he can't deal with every case. Everything would be better if there was no need to do that :-(

Surely if they can find one part of the Linux kernel that the FSF has copyright to, then that opens the floodgates, and the full (legal) weight and force of the FSF can stand behind this? So so long as they have one part, they can fight this.

The FSF rarely engage in enforcement action themselves, even on works they hold copyright on. The Linux kernel has probably been more actively enforced than any GNU project, with the possible exception of gcc.

While I sympathize with the writer of this post, I don't really see what recourse he has? If the license allows for 120 days before they have to release the source code, what could he possibly do?

120 days is HTC made up number. The GPL does not set such a delay. Therefor HTC delaying the release, HTC violate the GPL license which several components, like the kernel are licensed under.

The GPL (v2) sets no specific delay but it also sets no specific deadline by which the code must be released after a request has been made.

While the delays these companies are making are pretty lame and obviously go against the spirit of the GPLv2, releasing code 120 days after product release (or more importantly, from the first specific request for code from a customer who bought the product) is not clearly in violation, from a legal standpoint.

Are you a lawyer? Because in the past the advice I've been given is that the absence of a deadline on a requirement does not imply the ability to impose your own choice of deadline. 120 days is clearly far more than would be reasonably required to provide the code.

No but it is short enough that you wont have actually gone to court yet.

it also sets no specific deadline by which the code must be released after a request has been made

I imagine that 120 days would not be seen as reasonable in terms of a license/contract when the words are "upon request." Hyper-legalisms like "no specific deadline" are irrelevant.

It's pretty simple when it comes down to it - the copyright holders are the only people who can take action, and the fact that there is no "grace period" simply means that they are illegally distributing the binaries.

FYI, the author is the person behind gpl-violations.org. They already had lots of success in Europe/Germany (in and out of courts).

The licence does not specify 120 days. The licence does not specify a minimum or maximum. It's up to a judge to decide if what HTC are doing is in compliance with the GPL licence. They may not be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com