Just let me know where your new forum is going to be and i'll go there. I love Blackdroids ROM's!!!!! Features, support, ect.
Thanks for all the great work!
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Just let me know where your new forum is going to be and i'll go there. I love Blackdroids ROM's!!!!! Features, support, ect.
Thanks for all the great work!
Funny how people can find integrity issues within a community that is hacking in the first place. Obviously if you really cared about integrity, you wouldn't root or mod your phones in the first place, since it is a warranty voider.
Glad u brought this up. I wasnt gonna look into it but u got me thinking.
Customer Agreement
Imma just reprint this lil tidbit if info:
What Are Verizon Wireless' Rights to Limit or End Service or End this Agreement?
We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (i) if you: (a) breach this agreement; (b) pay late more than once in any 12 months; (c) incur charges larger than a required deposit or billing limit, or materially in excess of your monthly access charges (even if we haven't yet billed the charges); (d) provide credit information we can't verify; (e) are unable to pay us or go bankrupt; (f) resell your Service; (g) use your Service for any illegal purpose, including use that violates trade and economic sanctions and prohibitions promulgated by any U.S. governmental agency; (h) install, deploy or use any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate an RF signal without our permission; (i) steal from or lie to us; or (ii) if you, any user of your device or any account manager on your account: (a) threaten, harass, or use vulgar and/or inappropriate language toward our representatives; (b) interfere with our operations; (c) "spam," or engage in other abusive messaging or calling; (d) modify your device from its manufacturer's specifications; or (e) use your Service in a way that negatively affects our network or other customers. We can also temporarily limit your Service for any operational or governmental reason.
There u have it. I also pointed out what they lumped modifying in with.....See its kind of a grey area being that its open source. Now some may argue that device means hardware. But, if u get a phone thats not rooted, and make it rooted, U are modifying the device. Cuz the device didnt come with software already rooted.
Boooooom.....discuss
That wouldn't hold up in court, unless they could prove you were misusing or disrupting their cell service.
They cannot tell you what to do with your own property.
They cannot tell you what to do with your own property.
Pokebreaker
Member
The warranty voiding shows an act of defiance against the rules set forth for the product (which is obviously your choice to make). So, in a world of "open-source" material that holds no patents or copyrights, how do you determine the line of unethical behavior? By unspoken rules that people are encouraged, but not obligated to to abide by? By popular opinion?funny how some people can't see the difference in choosing to void a warranty... which is in no ways unethical or shows lack of integrity with putting your name on somebody else's work.... apples to apples my friend.
How many times have you thought of an great idea for an invention (or product/software etc.). Now what if you created the product, and then come to find out that someone else has already made the exact same thing, with the exact specifications. Does that mean that you stole the idea from them? Or is there the possibility that the only route to the end result was by using similar methods. Of course, there are laws that protect from that sort of thing. But i'm sure you understand what I am getting at.
I'm not advocating the use of someone else's stuff, but for the vast majority of users who are not developers and cannot properly read code lines that have supposed evidence in them of "biting", I don't understand how they can blindly follow an accusation without their being a knowledgeable neutral party to evaluate and present the verdict. It's like people picking sides on the OJ case prior to it even going to trial.
This has been interesting. I'm going to give my opinion. It's your phone, you can do what you like with it but plain and simple if you break the rules that were presented so nicely by jroc the company has the right to terminate your service. They can't take your phone from you, just terminate service.
This is all kind of off topic but I wouldn't feel right telling everyone to get back on topic if I just make the last comment. Lets have a few more comments and then try to get back on topic.
This is all kind of off topic but I wouldn't feel right telling everyone to get back on topic if I just make the last comment. Lets have a few more comments and then try to get back on topic.
The warranty voiding shows an act of defiance against the rules set forth for the product (which is obviously your choice to make). So, in a world of "open-source" material that holds no patents or copyrights, how do you determine the line of unethical behavior? By unspoken rules that people are encouraged, but not obligated to to abide by? By popular opinion?funny how some people can't see the difference in choosing to void a warranty... which is in no ways unethical or shows lack of integrity with putting your name on somebody else's work.... apples to apples my friend.
How many times have you thought of an great idea for an invention (or product/software etc.). Now what if you created the product, and then come to find out that someone else has already made the exact same thing, with the exact specifications. Does that mean that you stole the idea from them? Or is there the possibility that the only route to the end result was by using similar methods. Of course, there are laws that protect from that sort of thing. But i'm sure you understand what I am getting at.
I'm not advocating the use of someone else's stuff, but for the vast majority of users who are not developers and cannot properly read code lines that have supposed evidence in them of "biting", I don't understand how they can blindly follow an accusation without their being a knowledgeable neutral party to evaluate and present the verdict. It's like people picking sides on the OJ case prior to it even going to trial.
While I agree with you on most of your points....I don't agree with your comparison.
That line in the agreement is like the tag on your matress. It's CYA...I will still mod my phone and I will still cut that annoying tag off.
And as for worrying about defrauding Verizon...if people were bricking their phones I would agree. But that is not the case and they can flash the sbf and just put the phone back into the refurbished inventory. essentially a free swap.
Pokebreaker
Member
Hmm, hold up in court? That implies that if you don't get caught, there is no wrong. Which calls upon integrity.That wouldn't hold up in court, unless they could prove you were misusing or disrupting their cell service.
They cannot tell you what to do with your own property.
Another question just as a learning point for me. When we receive discounted phones from service providers, they are tied to a service contract, designed for them to get their monies worth out of the discount. If you close the contract early, then you are charged a certain fee amount. So during that time that they have you under contract for the phone, wouldn't the phone technically not be on a sort of loan status, until either the contract is over or your pay the early termination fees that cover the leftover?
The warranty voiding shows an act of defiance against the rules set forth for the product (which is obviously your choice to make). So, in a world of "open-source" material that holds no patents or copyrights, how do you determine the line of unethical behavior? By unspoken rules that people are encouraged, but not obligated to to abide by? By popular opinion?funny how some people can't see the difference in choosing to void a warranty... which is in no ways unethical or shows lack of integrity with putting your name on somebody else's work.... apples to apples my friend.
How many times have you thought of an great idea for an invention (or product/software etc.). Now what if you created the product, and then come to find out that someone else has already made the exact same thing, with the exact specifications. Does that mean that you stole the idea from them? Or is there the possibility that the only route to the end result was by using similar methods. Of course, there are laws that protect from that sort of thing. But i'm sure you understand what I am getting at.
I'm not advocating the use of someone else's stuff, but for the vast majority of users who are not developers and cannot properly read code lines that have supposed evidence in them of "biting", I don't understand how they can blindly follow an accusation without their being a knowledgeable neutral party to evaluate and present the verdict. It's like people picking sides on the OJ case prior to it even going to trial.
Ok, if I equate this to having the same idea but not stealing it (or giving credit where due as it were).
I shouldn't see this in UD (I downloaded it from his site) v10, right? Same idea, not same files.
Code:
Directory: C:\Users\chaos\desktop\udnextcomp2-BDS-20100413-1524\system\etc\permissions
Mode LastWriteTime Length Name
---- ------------- ------ ----
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 1001 android.hardware.camera.flash-autofocus.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 816 android.hardware.sensor.light.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 815 android.hardware.sensor.proximity.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 873 android.hardware.telephony.cdma.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 862 android.hardware.touchscreen.multitouch.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 1050 android.software.live_wallpaper.xml
[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 816 com.cyanogenmod.android.xml [/B] [/COLOR]
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 829 com.google.android.datamessaging.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 832 com.google.android.gtalkservice.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 816 com.google.android.maps.xml
-a--- 4/17/2010 12:26 PM 3106 dir.txt
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 8188 platform.xml
-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 1298 required_hardware.xmlI could go on, but same ideas, with same specifications does not = same exact names.
I'm absolutely neutral in all this. I agree it wasnt right if homeboy did do a major copy n paste job and say it was his. But please dont throw integrity out there when all this rooting is suspect. Google might not have a problem with it, but what about Verizon, Motorola, HTC?
Pokebreaker
Member
Yes, of course they can fix the phone, true. But if a person were to say "hey I tried to root/mod my phone and I messed up, can I get a free swap", what do you think the response would be? Probably no, which is why people would opt to lie about it.The warranty voiding shows an act of defiance against the rules set forth for the product (which is obviously your choice to make). So, in a world of "open-source" material that holds no patents or copyrights, how do you determine the line of unethical behavior? By unspoken rules that people are encouraged, but not obligated to to abide by? By popular opinion?funny how some people can't see the difference in choosing to void a warranty... which is in no ways unethical or shows lack of integrity with putting your name on somebody else's work.... apples to apples my friend.
How many times have you thought of an great idea for an invention (or product/software etc.). Now what if you created the product, and then come to find out that someone else has already made the exact same thing, with the exact specifications. Does that mean that you stole the idea from them? Or is there the possibility that the only route to the end result was by using similar methods. Of course, there are laws that protect from that sort of thing. But i'm sure you understand what I am getting at.
I'm not advocating the use of someone else's stuff, but for the vast majority of users who are not developers and cannot properly read code lines that have supposed evidence in them of "biting", I don't understand how they can blindly follow an accusation without their being a knowledgeable neutral party to evaluate and present the verdict. It's like people picking sides on the OJ case prior to it even going to trial.
While I agree with you on most of your points....I don't agree with your comparison.
That line in the agreement is like the tag on your matress. It's CYA...I will still mod my phone and I will still cut that annoying tag off.
And as for worrying about defrauding Verizon...if people were bricking their phones I would agree. But that is not the case and they can flash the sbf and just put the phone back into the refurbished inventory. essentially a free swap.
Hmm, hold up in court? That implies that if you don't get caught, there is no wrong. Which calls upon integrity.That wouldn't hold up in court, unless they could prove you were misusing or disrupting their cell service.
They cannot tell you what to do with your own property.
Another question just as a learning point for me. When we receive discounted phones from service providers, they are tied to a service contract, designed for them to get their monies worth out of the discount. If you close the contract early, then you are charged a certain fee amount. So during that time that they have you under contract for the phone, wouldn't the phone technically not be on a sort of loan status, until either the contract is over or your pay the early termination fees that cover the leftover?
On your first point. If Verizon were to terminate my service due to me installing open source software or overclocking my phone, I would take them to court. If they were to terminate my warranty, so be it.
Second point
A loan implies that they have ownership in your phone. No, they have ownership in your contract for service. ETF is buying off your contract, which they may say is to recoup the loss on the phone, but in reality, the phone ownership is yours as soon as the contract is signed and validated. They do not have a lease on your phone.
That wouldn't hold up in court, unless they could prove you were misusing or disrupting their cell service.
They cannot tell you what to do with your own property.
You are very incorrect. The service has a contractual agreement. You signed it at the time of starting your service. As such it is binding and can be enforced by Verizon at any time.
You should read up on contractual law when you get a free moment. I also suggest you read up on the difference between a "service" and "property".
I'm absolutely neutral in all this. I agree it wasnt right if homeboy did do a major copy n paste job and say it was his. But please dont throw integrity out there when all this rooting is suspect. Google might not have a problem with it, but what about Verizon, Motorola, HTC?
Integrity becomes an issue when you lie, continue to lie, and when caught, keep lying.
Thats an integrity issue.
Pokebreaker
Member
And that I can agree with.The warranty voiding shows an act of defiance against the rules set forth for the product (which is obviously your choice to make). So, in a world of "open-source" material that holds no patents or copyrights, how do you determine the line of unethical behavior? By unspoken rules that people are encouraged, but not obligated to to abide by? By popular opinion?funny how some people can't see the difference in choosing to void a warranty... which is in no ways unethical or shows lack of integrity with putting your name on somebody else's work.... apples to apples my friend.
How many times have you thought of an great idea for an invention (or product/software etc.). Now what if you created the product, and then come to find out that someone else has already made the exact same thing, with the exact specifications. Does that mean that you stole the idea from them? Or is there the possibility that the only route to the end result was by using similar methods. Of course, there are laws that protect from that sort of thing. But i'm sure you understand what I am getting at.
I'm not advocating the use of someone else's stuff, but for the vast majority of users who are not developers and cannot properly read code lines that have supposed evidence in them of "biting", I don't understand how they can blindly follow an accusation without their being a knowledgeable neutral party to evaluate and present the verdict. It's like people picking sides on the OJ case prior to it even going to trial.
Ok, if I equate this to having the same idea but not stealing it (or giving credit where due as it were).
I shouldn't see this in UD (I downloaded it from his site) v10, right? Same idea, not same files.
I could go on, but same ideas, with same specifications does not = same exact names.Code:Directory: C:\Users\chaos\desktop\udnextcomp2-BDS-20100413-1524\system\etc\permissions Mode LastWriteTime Length Name ---- ------------- ------ ---- -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 1001 android.hardware.camera.flash-autofocus.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 816 android.hardware.sensor.light.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 815 android.hardware.sensor.proximity.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 873 android.hardware.telephony.cdma.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 862 android.hardware.touchscreen.multitouch.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 1050 android.software.live_wallpaper.xml [COLOR=DarkRed][B]-a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 816 com.cyanogenmod.android.xml [/B] [/COLOR] -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 829 com.google.android.datamessaging.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 832 com.google.android.gtalkservice.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 816 com.google.android.maps.xml -a--- 4/17/2010 12:26 PM 3106 dir.txt -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 8188 platform.xml -a--- 8/1/2008 5:00 AM 1298 required_hardware.xml
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 3K
