[bugs now fixed!] LG kernel source code for Optimus V is broken

[obijohn]

I know what you're thinking, but that's just now how it's done, you have to meet them halfway, and talk to the right person. If one person contacts them then there's accountability, either they respond or they don't and I can report exactly what they say. It's important to try to work with companies that are trying to comply in a good way (as LG is, they're not obligated to have public source-code download). More than that I thought I was clear that I was in the process of contacting LG and I think it was totally presumptuous to step on that without even asking.

I have no idea why you are getting so upset about this. I'm not being presumptuous and I did not step on anything. Yes, you made it clear that you were contacting LG about the source. So you're saying that means that I can't? The GPL doesn't require LG to provide the source to the first person that asks. It requires them to give it to everyone who asks if they purchased the phone. LG can fulfill this by providing a common link for everyone to download, but if that doesn't exist (as is the case now, since their download is missing lines of code that we know of and perhaps some we don't) then they have to provide it to anyone who has accepted the terms of the license sold with the phone and the software that it runs.

Also, your idea of "rights" is wrong. The only person's rights that have been violated are the copyright holders of the Linux kernel (i.e. Linus and co.). We have no more standing as LG customers than anyone else. Any random person
can request source code (or an Aston-Martin) from LG, but if they refuse to provide code, they haven't caused a tort to you or me, they've only broken a contract they made with the Linux copyright holders when they made a product using their code. When the terms of that license are broken, only the owners of that code have legal standing to complain. LG responds to someone like me only as a courtesy.

Take a look at the GPL site, this is all explained.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. I was a lawyer for 20 years before retiring a couple of years ago, and I handled copyright cases in Federal Court, so I know a thing or two about copyright and licenses. When LG sold me the phone, they also sold me the software running on the phone. It so happens that they originally obtained the source code for that software under the GPL. When I buy the phone, I am buying the executable of the software. Because they are bound under the terms of the GPL, and because of what the GPL specifies, the terms of the GPL are transferred to me when I purchase the phone (see section 6). They are required to transfer that license to me, and I get the same rights under the license that they did. This makes me a direct party involved in the license. And the GPL gives me, as a license holder, the right to the source code for that software. This is the whole point of the GPL. This is the reason it exists in the first place. It exists so that when software is transfered (for profit or otherwise) the receiver is guaranteed the right to the source code so that they can modify it themselves.

The GPL gives purchasers of the phone the right to the source code LG used to compile the software running on the phone, and the GPL requires LG to provide the complete source, if asked, to anyone who has that right. BTW, you said in your first post that you didn't actually own a V, that you were doing this for a friend. Technically, anyone can request the source code, but LG is only required to give it to you if you have purchased the phone and are a party to the license. Your friend could give you the phone as a gift, and in doing so the license would transfer to you. However, in that case, your friend is the one who is required to provide you with the source code, not LG (they would be required to provide it to him). Basically, if you want to hold LG to the requirement of providing you with the source code, you have to purchase the phone from them.

I said my peace, I will go on to other things now.

 

[Starire70]

I have no idea why you are getting so upset about this. I'm not being presumptuous and I did not step on anything. Yes, you made it clear that you were contacting LG about the source. So you're saying that means that I can't? The GPL doesn't require LG to provide the source to the first person that asks. It requires them to give it to everyone who asks if they purchased the phone. LG can fulfill this by providing a common link for everyone to download, but if that doesn't exist (as is the case now, since their download is missing lines of code that we know of and perhaps some we don't) then they have to provide it to anyone who has accepted the terms of the license sold with the phone and the software that it runs.


Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. I was a lawyer for 20 years before retiring a couple of years ago, and I handled copyright cases in Federal Court, so I know a thing or two about copyright and licenses. When LG sold me the phone, they also sold me the software running on the phone. It so happens that they originally obtained the source code for that software under the GPL. When I buy the phone, I am buying the executable of the software. Because they are bound under the terms of the GPL, and because of what the GPL specifies, the terms of the GPL are transferred to me when I purchase the phone (see section 6). They are required to transfer that license to me, and I get the same rights under the license that they did. This makes me a direct party involved in the license. And the GPL gives me, as a license holder, the right to the source code for that software. This is the whole point of the GPL. This is the reason it exists in the first place. It exists so that when software is transfered (for profit or otherwise) the receiver is guaranteed the right to the source code so that they can modify it themselves.

The GPL gives purchasers of the phone the right to the source code LG used to compile the software running on the phone, and the GPL requires LG to provide the complete source, if asked, to anyone who has that right. BTW, you said in your first post that you didn't actually own a V, that you were doing this for a friend. Technically, anyone can request the source code, but LG is only required to give it to you if you have purchased the phone and are a party to the license. Your friend could give you the phone as a gift, and in doing so the license would transfer to you. However, in that case, your friend is the one who is required to provide you with the source code, not LG (they would be required to provide it to him). Basically, if you want to hold LG to the requirement of providing you with the source code, you have to purchase the phone from them.

I said my peace, I will go on to other things now.

Umm, but you didn't buy the phone form LG, Virgin Did. So according to you last bit there about how he doesn't own the phone his friend does but if his friend gave him the phone as a gift then his friend would have to provide the source code and not LG. So technically Virgin is the one that would have to provide the source code not LG. Or you could go even further and say Radio Shack, Target, or whoever else is selling the phones has to provide the source because you really didn't get the phone form Virgin.
I believe the sprit of the GPL is not who sold the product but who modifyed the original code last is the one that has to provide it.

 

[obijohn]

Umm, but you didn't buy the phone form LG, Virgin Did. So according to you last bit there about how he doesn't own the phone his friend does but if his friend gave him the phone as a gift then his friend would have to provide the source code and not LG. So technically Virgin is the one that would have to provide the source code not LG. Or you could go even further and say Radio Shack, Target, or whoever else is selling the phones has to provide the source because you really didn't get the phone form Virgin.
I believe the sprit of the GPL is not who sold the product but who modifyed the original code last is the one that has to provide it.

That's not the way retail works. The key is to look at who has to cover the warranty on the new phone (not the cell service). Here, LG is the one who has to cover the warranty. See page 104 of the Optimus V "Basics Guide" that came with the phone; Virgin is not listed, only LG. They also provide service on the phones, not Virgin.

 

[angelpenny48]

man u guys are way to smart for me...........

 

[Eollie]

Its funny everybody is either currently or a retired attorney on the internet...

 

[brokdikdog]

Not trying to get in the middle of this passing contest but I do wish to point out that Apple attempted to claim that the end user had no rights to the software on their iphone. This was when they were fighting the library of congress granting an exception to the DMCA for jailbreaking/rooting.
Apple lost that battle and part of the finding was that when you purchase the phone you also are purchasing at least one copy of the OS, the one on the phone. So we as the final purchasers do have all the same rights to the OS as any middleman would.

Sent from my Optimus Stalker

 

[mmarz]

Its funny everybody is either currently or a retired attorney on the internet...

Objection!...

 

[Eollie]

Umm, but you didn't buy the phone form LG, Virgin Did.

This is wrong. Virgin and LG are in contract with each other to produce the phone. Ultimately the outlet you bought the phone from is who purchased it. IE: Best Buy, Target, Radio Shack and the likes. The branding and such is all done at the LG factory to reduce the cost of the phone.

I believe the sprit of the GPL is not who sold the product but who modifyed the original code last is the one that has to provide it.

No matter what anybody else says, I think this is a pretty fair assumption. BUT seeing as how VM doesnt actually put the OS and their programs on it falls back to LG. They make and load everything on the phone and then direct ship to retailers and the Virgin Mobile store.

 

[JerryScript]

Think outside the box here, or the phone at least.

When you buy a PC from anywhere with Windows pre-installed, you must accept all licensing terms from 1) Microsoft 2) the computer Manufacturer 3) the retailer (sometimes, not always). Even though there are two or three middle men involved here (manufacturer, store, etc), your license agreement for the OS is still between you and Microsoft.

Stands to reason that this same logic would apply to a cell phone. Your end-user agreement is between you and LG in this case, since they wrote the particular code that this phone runs on.

There are of course some differences since we are talking GPL vs Copyrighted OSs, but the licensing issues are pretty generic.

BTW- I'm not a lawyer, but I did drive by a holiday inn last nite!

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Not trying to get in the middle of this passing contest but I do wish to point out that Apple attempted to claim that the end user had no rights to the software on their iphone. This was when they were fighting the library of congress granting an exception to the DMCA for jailbreaking/rooting.
Apple lost that battle and part of the finding was that when you purchase the phone you also are purchasing at least one copy of the OS, the one on the phone. So we as the final purchasers do have all the same rights to the OS as any middleman would.

Sent from my Optimus Stalker

The iPhone OS uses proprietary software rather than using a GPL though. And as far as I'm aware you license an OS (same with a computer game).

 

[Eollie]

The iPhone OS uses proprietary software rather than using a GPL though. And as far as I'm aware you license an OS (same with a computer game).

And this argument people are using was BECAUSE of apple trying to lock people out of a device they PAID for. It was heard by the library of congress and decided on by them because of iOS. I cant think of one instance that android has been under the gun like iOS.

@Jerryscript I visited a Holiday in tonight..does that count?

 

[brokdikdog]

The iPhone OS uses proprietary software rather than using a GPL though. And as far as I'm aware you license an OS (same with a computer game).

If you read the DMCA exemption rulings, I believe it was in the LoC's response to Apple's comments, the finding was that when you purchase a phone it includes the copy of the OS that it comes with. This only pertains to the original owner though, which is why it is illegal for you to root/jailbreak my phone or to sale the phone once this is done.

Your theory of iOS being proprietary, and thus subject to licensing terms, would mean that it was still illegal to jailbreak without Apple's consent. The DMCA exemption got around licensing by stating that you own the copy of the OS that came with it, making it legal to modify how you like, but restricting transfer of ownership.

Edit:
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2010/75fr43825.pdf

Page 7

Sent from my Optimus Stalker

 

[Nit3H8wk]

Description Notice Download
LGVM670(Thunder) Android Froyo / kernel bugs were fixed.

 

[obijohn]

Description Notice Download
LGVM670(Thunder) Android Froyo / kernel bugs were fixed.

Wow, I will have to say that LG responded pretty quickly to this! I'm impressed. I'm downloading it right now, I'll report back.

 

[pcp135]

Wow, I will have to say that LG responded pretty quickly to this! I'm impressed. I'm downloading it right now, I'll report back.

Yeah. Hopefully, the bug fixes have done the trick. I am really hoping someone can get this kernel recompiled.

 

[obijohn]

Well, it appears the source is still broken. They did fix the errors where a line of code was missing from two files, as mentioned in the first post here and the linked blog post. There is also one line changed in kernel/scripts/mod/elfconfig.h (changing "#define HOST_ELFCLASS ELFCLASS64" to "#define HOST_ELFCLASS ELFCLASS32").

However, a problem still lies in the filenames of certain files with case differences, and to compound that problem they have completely changed two of those files but still have the case broken. So who knows if the new contents of those files are correct. They differ from the files before the update, and they differ from the LS670 source.

They replaced kernel/net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c with xt_rateest.c, and kernel/include/linux/netfilter/xt_rateest.h with xt_RATEEST.h (instead of matching the .c and .h filename cases, they swapped them both). xt_rateest.c tries to include xt_rateest.h, but can't find it because they renamed it xt_RATEEST.h. And as I said, the actual contents of both new files is very different from the files before the change. However, before the change, the contents of these files matched the same files from the LS670 source (even if the case names were different). Now, the contents are unique, so perhaps the contents are now correct, but I don't think we can be sure just yet since the filenames are still broken.

This is just a guess, but I think they may have originally used the case of these filenames as a way to try and keep code from LS670 accidentally compiling in the VM670 branch. Obviously, this didn't work out too well.

 

[picasticks]

as you have noticed, source is fixed

Sorry I've been away from the thread for a while ... work to do.

Anyway as you all noticed LG fixed the source yesterday, and sent me an email which I didn't notice until today due to bad spam filtering on my mail server. My bad. I think it's pretty good of them to fix it promptly as they did.

I don't want to wade back into the GPL discussion ... I think everyone agrees that LG is obligated the to distribute the source code, which they have.

Anyway I'm going to update the top post to note that the problem has been addressed. I've built my OC kernel using the new source and will post it on a new thread soon.

They replaced kernel/net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c with xt_rateest.c, and kernel/include/linux/netfilter/xt_rateest.h with xt_RATEEST.h (instead of matching the .c and .h filename cases, they swapped them both). xt_rateest.c tries to include xt_rateest.h, but can't find it because they renamed it xt_RATEEST.h. And as I said, the actual contents of both new files is very different from the files before the change. However, before the change, the contents of these files matched the same files from the LS670 source (even if the case names were different). Now, the contents are unique, so perhaps the contents are now correct, but I don't think we can be sure just yet since the filenames are still broken.

As I noted before (but didn't explain very well), there's no problem here. xt_RATEEST.c and xt_rateest.c are not the same thing, they're distinct files. The problem before was that LG extracted the source tree onto a case-insensitive fs, and so one of each of these files overwrote the other one, so these files were accidentally omitted from the kernel tarball. The new source tarball is fixed as far as I can tell.

I made a full diff of the LS670 VD source vs. the VM670 source in case anyone is interested. It's here. I've been too busy to give it even a light read, but I did at least do a "diff -qr" to make sure no files were missing (only one is, Doc/io-mapping.txt, which was missing before, but NBD it's just a standard kernel doc file).

 

[obijohn]

As I noted before (but didn't explain very well), there's no problem here. xt_RATEEST.c and xt_rateest.c are not the same thing, they're distinct files. The problem before was that LG extracted the source tree onto a case-insensitive fs, and so one of each of these files overwrote the other one, so these files were accidentally omitted from the kernel tarball. The new source tarball is fixed as far as I can tell.

You're right, I knew they were distinct filenames but I didn't realize that one got overwritten with the other. That explains a lot. It does compile just fine now.

I'm a little disappointed that they still stripped out all of their comments in this tree and not just the emails (except for the Makefile, surprised they didn't catch the emails there). It sure makes the diffs harder to compare with the Sprint code. Two files that are otherwise exactly the same have lots of diff entries simply because all the LG comments are gone. Oh well.

 

[mmarz]

You're right, I knew they were distinct filenames but I didn't realize that one got overwritten with the other. That explains a lot. It does compile just fine now.

I'm a little disappointed that they still stripped out all of their comments in this tree and not just the emails (except for the Makefile, surprised they didn't catch the emails there). It sure makes the diffs harder to compare with the Sprint code. Two files that are otherwise exactly the same have lots of diff entries simply because all the LG comments are gone. Oh well.

Why not strip the comments from the S source yourself so that you can compare them? I bet you can easily replicate the system they used. This is my go to utility for search and replacing multiple files on windows: Search and Replace for Windows - Funduc Software

 

[ashton4life]

Sorry for the noob question but I was wondering if all of this was good news on helping you guys get MMS working on GB? Thanks