There's one thing that puzzles me about this whole situation. Can anyone explain to me how a hacked rom is any different from the Widcomm project? In both cases software has been manipulated to allow it run on a machine that it was not intended for. The installation notes for the Widcomm stack contain a warning that installing it is probably illegal. Yet it has been extensively discussed in this forum and links have been posted to allow it to be downloaded by anyone who chooses to. Moreover, the mods made the Widcomm thread a sticky. It seems very odd to me that one piece of hacked software is acceptable and even encouraged but another can not even be mentioned.
There's one thing that puzzles me about this whole situation. Can anyone explain to me how a hacked rom is any different from the Widcomm project? In both cases software has been manipulated to allow it run on a machine that it was not intended for. The installation notes for the Widcomm stack contain a warning that installing it is probably illegal. Yet it has been extensively discussed in this forum and links have been posted to allow it to be downloaded by anyone who chooses to. Moreover, the mods made the Widcomm thread a sticky. It seems very odd to me that one piece of hacked software is acceptable and even encouraged but another can not even be mentioned.
Yes. There are third party applications included in the ROM that previously Dell paid a royalty to use. When you clone and distribute that product and don't pay that royalty, you are a pirate stealing software.
Wait, something you just said doesn't make sense. If I install Dell's WM5 A02 ROM onto my Axim, I am also using third party applications that Dell paid a royalty to use. Okay, that makes sense. Now let's say I want to change my ROM to a ROM that has been "progressed past A02". I am still using the same third party apps that the A02 ROM had and my legal, paid-for copy of A02 is not being used. So, I'm using the same number of copies of Dell's third party apps as I was before (if I was on A02) and I'm not copying my A02 upgrade disc and selling it on Ebay as an "original A02 ROM update disc". So how is it that the third party companies lost any money in that situation?
So in other terms, I can understand the piracy claim if I was selling (or giving away) multiple copies of Dell's Axim setup CD (or the ROM contained therein). It makes perfect sense that if Dell was going to put out 1,000,000 Axim units, they pay third party companies whatever royalties for the use of 1,000,000 copies of their software. If I start making copies of my A02 ROM and give those away, there are going to be 1,000,000+ copies of third party software in use. That is wrong. But if someone builds onto the A02 ROM and I obtain that, I am not increasing the number of third party copies in use because I am no longer using A02. It is simply in my ownership, though not in use. How then would I be causing ANYONE to lose any money? (except maybe myself for paying for the stupid Dell upgrade that didn't work right in the first place)
Should we ban posts on tethering cellphone to PC also?
Based on the comments from moderators, we probably should ban any post discussing how to tether cellphone to PC/PDA also.
ATT/Cingular madates that cellphone users tethering their cellphone to computer for internet purchanse a more expensive data plan, not just the $20/month smartphone/medianet plan. Although ATT/Cingular cellphones do have the ability to tether to PC with the cheaper data plan, it is explicitly stated that it is prohibited.
Thus people discuss "how to" on tethering in this forum instead of calling to ATT support since they did not purchase the PDA/PC data plan to receive proper support.
This is the classical case of someone else "loosing money". The amount is even more than just pirated software, which is typically $20-$30. In this case ATT is loosing $20-$30 per month!
cavyman, most royalty licensing arrangements don't have strong relationships to the number of licenses "in use" but to the number of licenses "issued." Since there is no way for Dell, or anyone else, to know how many copies of each product are "in use" the royalty is paid for how many Dell issues. So, by replacing your ROM with a pirate version, you are putting into your machine an unpaid for license of that software. The loser is the vendor of that product, who, if you or Dell paid them, would profit from your use of their product. The fact that I may not use WiFi does not relieve Dell of the cost of that WiFi product in my X50v because the license fee is due as soon as they sell the device to me. Dell has made the software available to me, triggering the license, even if I don't use it. For MS products the licensing is even more stringent. Dell pays for every product that MIGHT run windows, even if it isn't configured that way. So if I order a Dell desktop and direct that it have Linux installed as the operating system, Dell still pays a royalty to MS for the box because it CAN run Windows. That practice was challenged by the anti-trust lawsuit, but remained unchanged in the settlement.
Now, if you personally hack your own ROM and if you add to it a product for which you own a license and if that license allows you to make that copy for that installation, then that is not piracy, but your own customization. On the other hand, if you got that additional product from a different ROM and did NOT license it, or if the license agreement on the original ROM did not permit you to move it from one device to another, or if you did not remove it from the previous device as the license agreement demanded, thereby creating a second copy, then all of that is piracy.
Obviously, if you download someone else's ROM and use it, that's pretty clearly a duplicate unlicensed copy of all the products and is a clear case of piracy.
Consider this parallel: Let's say I own Windows XP Home edition. The Professional edition has a feature I want, so I get it from a friend who has XP Pro and isn't using it and install it on my PC. That is piracy--even though the legitimate buyer didn't use the feature, he doesn't have the right to pass it to me. That is clearly spelled out in the licensing agreement that comes with the Pro edition (remember all that fine print?). If I want the feature, I have to pay for it unless the license agreement permits the original purchaser to give it to me. It's that simple.
Consider this parallel: Let's say I own Windows XP Home edition. The Professional edition has a feature I want, so I get it from a friend who has XP Pro and isn't using it and install it on my PC. That is piracy--even though the legitimate buyer didn't use the feature, he doesn't have the right to pass it to me. That is clearly spelled out in the licensing agreement that comes with the Pro edition (remember all that fine print?). If I want the feature, I have to pay for it unless the license agreement permits the original purchaser to give it to me. It's that simple.
Is it really that simple though?
The hacked ROMs out at the moment contain no new features, they're based on Microsoft's AKU updates. In other words, software updates, which are actually as far as I'm aware made available to device manufacturers (such as HTC/Dell) for free.
A better comparison would be: Microsoft decides to release a new Service Pack for Windows XP, service pack 3. Instead of releasing it to users, they issue the update to PC manufacturers to pass on to users so they don't have to deal with the support headache. However, my PC manufacturer has left the PC business, so there's no chance of them distributing the update to me, even though everyone else is getting it for free! My friend received the update for his computer and passed a copy on to me, and I made customisations so that it would run OK on my PC.
Illegal? Well, Microsoft would argue that it's copyright infringement (or at least, distribution is), just as they are doing with the hacked ROMs.
Is it stealing? Is there an ethical reason for not using a hacked ROM based on an AKU update? Not really, when you consider that
a) The update is free to manufacturers and no manufacturers choosing to make updated ROMs available are charging their users for updates.
b) Unlike, say music piracy, there is no "lost sale". Nobody loses out in any way because I decide to install a hacked update of WM on my Axim. We're not in a position where Dell is charging people for ROM updates, and people are avoiding paying by using hacked ROMs instead.
c) Microsoft isn't marketing the "old" version and the "updated" versions of WM5 to anyone (inc. manufacturers) at different prices. The old version and the latest AKU update, are, from the view of everybody, the same product. This is completely unlike the Home vs Pro situation.
Quote:
For MS products the licensing is even more stringent. Dell pays for every product that MIGHT run windows, even if it isn't configured that way. So if I order a Dell desktop and direct that it have Linux installed as the operating system, Dell still pays a royalty to MS for the box because it CAN run Windows. That practice was challenged by the anti-trust lawsuit, but remained unchanged in the settlement.
Now that is just absolutely ridiculous if it's true. If someone installs Windows onto a Linux Dell computer, they have to pay MS for a copy of Windows anyway! Does Apple pay Microsoft a royalty for all of the new Macs they sell? They can run Windows. Do Sharp pay Microsoft a royalty because their Zaurus PDAs could in theory run Windows Mobile? Heh, maybe I should write my own x86-compatible operating system and start charging Dell licensing fees because their computers are capable of running it.
As for the policy on this forum, I said before I can see the "legal" reasons why Aximsite doesn't want to become associated with hacked ROM discussion. However, as has been mentioned, I find it odd that supposedly equally illegal projects such as Widcomm and ROM images for the SD Loader are allowed. In fact, not only is discussion allowed, but also the posting of direct links to downloads relating to them.
I think it's a bit unfair overall. Particularly on people who haven't found out about the unoffical ROMs by themselves and come here looking for help to make their Axim faster/more stable. Under the rules we're not supposed to even mention to them that significantly better ROMs exist and leave them frustrated with their PDA.
Illegal? Well, Microsoft would argue that it's copyright infringement (or at least, distribution is), just as they are doing with the hacked ROMs. ...CLIP
And since they are the aggrieved party, that's all that matters.
Quote:
CLIP... Heh, maybe I should write my own x86-compatible operating system and start charging Dell licensing fees because their computers are capable of running it.
Well, if you do something to gain the dominant share of the market as MS did, then you, too can make those demands. Dell and the other vendors had to agree with MS because otherwise MS wouldn't sell them ANY licenses for Windows, leaving the hardware useless for the average user. Couple that with a "reasonable" price break on per copy costs and you get a double whammy on the manfacturers. They have an option of paying a reduced charge per box, even if it doesn't have windows on it, or they can buy retail copies of the windows operating system at full price for every box except those with some other operating system. Given that the overwhelming majority were windows, not "something else," the financial reasons to agree with MS are compelling. Hence the lawsuit. Abuse of monopoly position, restraint of free trade, etc, etc.
As for the other Widcomm discussion, if it were up to me I'd ban that discussion as well for the same reasons. But it ain't up to me and life ain't fair.
And since they are the aggrieved party, that's all that matters.
Yep, that's the legal standpoint and if that is your opinion too, then that's fine with me. I take it that you agree though with my other points that there's no ethical reason against using "illegally" updated ROMs though?
And about the aggrieved party... I'd like to point out that I am also pretty aggrieved (in terms of distress, anyway) that Dell isn't bothering to provide any updates for my $500 investment, free or paid for, while other companies continue to provide updates free of charge. In fact ASUS even goes as far as providing free updates to WM6, as do many of the PDA phone manufacturers.
Originally Posted by JakeRich
But it ain't up to me and life ain't fair.
Hehe, well at least life is fair for me in this case :). Thanks to the dedicated work of several people on hacking ROMs, my Axim is running about twice as fast as it ever did with Dell's last update. In fact, the speed change, which is actually mostly thanks to the work of Microsoft, has been significant enough that if I ever lose or break my x51v, I will be getting another PDA. Something which I couldn't say I was sure about based on my evaluation of the older AKU 2 based WM ROMs.
In fact, can I ask if you have either the x50v or x51v? Because, please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I find it hard to believe that you'd have this "absolutely no exceptions" attitude if you had either! :)
Yep, that's the legal standpoint and if that is your opinion too, then that's fine with me. I take it that you agree though with my other points that there's no ethical reason against using "illegally" updated ROMs though?
No, I don't agree. Illegal acts like piracy are, in my view, unethical. Don't want to argue philosophy, but in this particular instance I hold that there is no "ethical" justification for software piracy.
Quote:
And about the aggrieved party... I'd like to point out that I am also pretty aggrieved (in terms of distress, anyway) that Dell isn't bothering to provide any updates for my $500 investment, free or paid for, while other companies continue to provide updates free of charge. In fact ASUS even goes as far as providing free updates to WM6, as do many of the PDA phone manufacturers.
If Dell had committed to upgrades or updates, you might have an argument. But they didn't, so you don't.
Quote:
CLIP...
In fact, can I ask if you have either the x50v or x51v? Because, please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I find it hard to believe that you'd have this "absolutely no exceptions" attitude if you had either! :)
I have two. I have an X50 Mid and an X50v. Both are good performers for me. And my "absolutely no exceptions" attitude sticks!
I dont see why we have to have this argument a second time...
If Chris, et all, dont want discussion of the ROM on their site, then go to XDA developers forum like the rest of us did and we can discuss it there. Maybe tehre whoudl even be a stickie saying "talking about cooked romsi is prohibited on Aximsite, go to xda developers instead" witht he link (lol)
I think if you all look back, these same arguments were already raised, and some even agreed upon by the mods/admins, however this is a case of C.Y.A. (Cover your ass) where Aximsite is trying to prevent being sued by MS/Dell
Though it should be noted that MS has not so much as sent an email to football, despite everyone in the Axim community (which surely includes some MS reps) knowing what he's doing. Personally, I think that with dead software/systems, people will, in genneral, turn a blind eye, since it's not hurting the company's sales (Dell isn't selling PDAs anymore)
Yes, I know there are holes in the above arguments, I dont much care, I'm only trying to make the point that if anyone here wants to talk about cooking roms, go to XDA forums, stop clogging up this site with threads that are just going to piss people off and bring the wrath of the gods down upon your ass in their flaming chariots with their devine swords of justice swinging! (read: it will piss off the mods/admins)
ok, I made my point, I'll shut up now before I fill the whole page...
__________________
"There is a differance between living and existing. Existing is sitting, waiting patiently for death. Living is meeting thantos' scythe with your own blade" --- Original
Blackberry 7510 + operamini + $10 boost mobile = unlimited internet on BB w/o $40 BIS plan! (no email though)
I dont see why we have to have this argument a second time...
If Chris, et all, dont want discussion of the ROM on their site, then go to XDA developers forum like the rest of us did and we can discuss it there. Maybe tehre whoudl even be a stickie saying "talking about cooked romsi is prohibited on Aximsite, go to xda developers instead" witht he link (lol)
I think if you all look back, these same arguments were already raised, and some even agreed upon by the mods/admins, however this is a case of C.Y.A. (Cover your ass) where Aximsite is trying to prevent being sued by MS/Dell
Lol, I agree. This thread has gotten so far off topic from where it started. I simply said that, "Yes, moderators, illegal ROM discussion should not be allowed and that's fine. Just don't punish everyone else for the ignorance of a few people who break the rules." Now somehow everyone is trying to legalize ROM posting again (or explain why it's not allowed........again).
Just for the record, my intention in starting this thread was not to cause a gigantic revolt against the moderators. Moderating an online forum is not easy--I've been there before. I very much enjoy Aximsite. It is an incredible tool that with resources that just do not exist in the same capacity anywhere else on the net. Other sites have their perks, but Aximsite can't be replaced. Having said that, I commend Aximsite's "higher-ups" for sticking to their policies so that the site can remain available into the future. Since I have started this thread, I am satisfied that it served its purpose. I said what I felt needed to be said and there has been some good discussion/clarification of policies.
So, if any moderator would like to close this thread now, that is fine with me.
Maybe the thing that you guys don't understand or don't get is that the links posted lead to the place where you can get A03 for the X50v that caused all this mess... the resulting site gives you the link for A03 but... and its a big BUT also to this message below the A03 information
Attention! If you have Windows Mobile 2003SE ROM on your device, FIRST, please download THIS ARCHIVE (RAR 32.4 MB), and update your PDA to A01 Windows Mobile 5 ROM.
Which is downright blatant illegal so thats pretty much what destroyed it.
Maybe the thing that you guys don't understand or don't get is that the links posted lead to the place where you can get A03 for the X50v that caused all this mess... the resulting site gives you the link for A03 but... and its a big BUT also to this message below the A03 information
Attention! If you have Windows Mobile 2003SE ROM on your device, FIRST, please download THIS ARCHIVE (RAR 32.4 MB), and update your PDA to A01 Windows Mobile 5 ROM.
Which is downright blatant illegal so thats pretty much what destroyed it.
Direct links to (presumably) the same files also exist on this site, which was my point earlier...
The procedure for "manually" reinstalling WM5 A01 ROM and upgrading from WM2003 to A01 are almost the same, they use the same files. The only difference is that going from 2003 to WM5 needs a new bootloader, going from WM5 to WM5 doesn't.
And also, in terms of technical illegality, upgrading to WM5 for free and installing a modified WM5 ROM are the same anyway. They're both copyright infringement.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Should we ban posts on tethering cellphone to PC also?
