i just wanted to know...

[arris69]

[SAMSUNG OSRC COMMENTS DELIVERY NOTIFICATION]

Dear Arris,

Thank you for your patience.
For this matter, we have discussed with our development team and legal team lawyers.
We regret to inform you as follows:

- Samsung DTV Development team release opensource package according to GPL v2 license agreements.
( source code compiled and scripts for build/installation )
- For ensuring of normal operation of product and protecting of CP''s intellectual property,
it is impossible to make encrypted one intentionally with user-rebuilt image.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Please contact us if you have any problems to get open source package.
Thank you at all time.

Kindly regards,

----- Original Message -----
Sender: arris ser lev(arris@gmx.net)
Date: 2011-01-04 18:38:51(GMT+09:00)

dear osrc-team

i rebuilded the kernel for my tv type from your relesed sources, now i would like to ask you
how i can test it?
how can i control the bootloader to boot a kernel from usb and how to create the signature for the kernel.
and how to create the Image.sec, Image.sec.cmac, Image.sec.cs and Image.sec.vs files for an update procedure
it is possible to switch the tv into some kind of developer mode, to not perform this pseudo security checks?

thnx a lot
arris

[marcelru]

Hi arris69,

It's not totally unexpected, this response. Nevertheless, if you want to push it, you might politely ask them to comply with the GPLv2, section 3a.
This states that derived work from a GPL-ed program needs to be published as source code, just like all the rest of the code. In particular, the linux kernel module code for samdrv.ko, rfs.ko and a few others should be shipped with the firmware or at least made available if I understand correctly. They will not do that voluntarily, but maybe the Free Software Foundation may want to give them a push?

Anyway, nice try.

grtz,

marcelr

[sbav1]

[SAMSUNG OSRC COMMENTS DELIVERY NOTIFICATION]
- Samsung DTV Development team release opensource package according to GPL v2 license agreements.

IMO that part (GPLv2 vs GPLv3) may be important, from a legal standpoint.
AFAIK, Samsung by mistake relased their B-Series TVs with GPL/LGPL v3 licence included (in TV manual). GPL v3 strictly prohibits so called "tivoization" (any GPL v3 software distributed in "consumer product" must be accompanied by adequate "installation information" to enable installation of modified software).

Here is interesting article, covering this subject in detail: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resource ... guide.html (relevant parts: 4.2.2 "Building the Sources" & 7.3 "User Products and Installation Information").

OTOH, I doubt there is any GPL v3 licenced software inside this TV (kernel & busybox are GPL v2), so it's probably not GPL violation (false advertisement, more likely).

However it may be fun to tease Samsung legal department a little more about this, I think .

[erdem_ua]

Someone think me as a litigious person. Yes, I have multiple cases to big companies and won almost all of them...
I thought how can I open case to Samsung, since I am not write single line of those codes.(I wish to write it)

But might be say that I bought this TV for hacking it and for make development on it. (Already wanted to buy C series already. Please donate some )
Manual says also it's GPL3 device that allows me to hack and make development on device.
But samsung violates the license, so they give wrong information on manual.
Because of that I want big discount for that "defect", like half of TV price.

Consumer laws on my country allow such a case. I think every country has similar laws due wrong information on manual.
At least samsung don't open source code anyway, but we might get some discounts from our TVs

[nobody]

Unfortunately this is an old story.
Sony and LG also use linux as the OS of their tv and they release even less sources and no tools to build and install the opensourced firmware.
Same goes with OpenRG for routers.

Many people tried to force such companies (including many others like huawei or android phone makers who lock bootloaders or encrypt firmwares).

Some companies are afraid of bad press and sometimes release sources and tools but only after months or years from the first release.

Even Apple IOS is almost entirely based on DARWIN which is opensource and available on Apple site, but Apple will never give you a tool to compile and install a modded IOS on the iPhone, iPad or Inextdevice.

So, as always there are only 2 ways:

1) continue hacking devices in an endless cat & mouse game where the cat looses only when he doesn't care (otherwise will always prevale).

2) politely ask the cat to let you eat some cheese. (it doesn't work with big companies like samsung and apple)

3) convince them you are a good programmer and offer your help to actually improve the devices.

Unfortunately in this fast-food world, electronic devices are sold and forgotten. The firmwares are rarely updated to introduce new features. They are updated to correct security bugs or bugs that prevent the device from functioning normally.

Sadly, the days of devices that lasted for 10-15 years are gone.

So, if you really want a device to hack, get the first release of any new device, and you will have good chances to be able to run arbitrary code on it.
After a few updates even the most inexperienced company will eventually get smart and new buyers will be locked out.

Another solution is to use TVs as "big monitors" and connect a PC an home theater or a nas/mediaplayer which are usually open and free to mod.

It's a shame, I know, but they own the hardware and related intellectual property and they must protect it.

As a last note: I wonder why people is so eager to update the firmware of devices... as they say: "if it works, don't fix it!"