Amazon Releases Kindle Source Code 153
MackieChan writes with a piece of news that slipped past earlier this month: "Barnes & Noble receives a lot of credit from the Slashdot community for standing up to Microsoft and for allowing the Nook to be so easy to root, but perhaps Amazon releasing the source code to the Kindle will help it gain back supporters it lost after remotely removing ebooks."
Hacking time (Score:1)
Nook easy to hack? (Score:5, Informative)
The new Nook tablet comes with a locked bootloader, unike the Nook touch.
Re: (Score:2)
The new Nook tablet comes with a locked bootloader, unike the Nook touch.
Does it still boot from MicroSD? I'm happy to wipe the internal memory and put CM9 on it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to unlock the boot loader first and I have yet to read any news about that :-(
It's very disappointing that the boot loader should be locked as 99% of the Nook users would use the Nook software without any hacks anyway if it wasn't locked.
This just means that they won't get all the free press the Nook Color got everytime a cool hack made it the tablet to have. For instance, this tablet ran a hacked version of Honeycomb BEFORE the first demo of the Motorola Xoom which was to be the first Honeycomb-ba
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone compiled a kexec kernel module doesn't mean the kernel booted from the signed bootloader will allow it!
This prevents hope of booting something else:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=19707511&postcount=275 [xda-developers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That sucks. Makes me glad I didn't trade up to the tablet from my NC, after all, then.
Now I'll just have to keep mine alive forever
Re: (Score:2)
All of 'em (Score:5, Informative)
Not just the source to the recent Kindle Fire, but code for all of them back to the original. Nice move.
I wonder if they held any bits back?
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, this is coming from an Amazon Prime customer. I buy almost everything off of Amazon these days, with one exception: books. For that I have my Nook, which I use mainly because it reads PDFs too.
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that the Kindle Fire runs Android, are we supposed to forgive them for intrusive DRM because they abided by their legal requirements to us
Celebrate your easy victories... just because it's "legally required" doesn't mean that anyone will do it, especially major corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought. And to answer the Summary's question, no it won't because the people who aren't buying a Kindle because of remote-wipe capability are the same people who will now complain that there is DRM somewhere or that the chip design isn't also open or...
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
I take it you missed the part of the comment you replied to that said they released the source for all of the Kindles? I can't think of anything I'd like to do with mine right now, but it is cool that I can mess about with it if I want. Porting nethack or something might be cool, since that's pretty well suited to an e-ink display.
Re: (Score:2)
Interactive fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, my Kindle 3 does sort by most recently read by default, so you wouldn't even need to add that feature yourself!
The screen on mine cracked while it was in my bag last month, but they sent me a new one without even asking further questions, I was pretty chuffed with that.. had 2 months left on the warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Intrusive DRM?
B&N is the one who locked the Nook Tablet's bootloader, tivoizing it. Not Amazon.
I love how the article points out how easily hackable the Nook Touch was while ignoring the fact that B&N has made a major move towards lockdown with the Tablet - locked bootloader, plus it is partitioned so you can only use 1GB of the storage for sideloaded content. The rest is "B&N Content" only.
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
It's apparently a requirement for Netflix.
Sure every Android device can get Netflix, but what they stream is the SD version of the video. If you want the HD version, your device needs to be locked down.
Compare Netflix on the old Color and the new Tablet and you'll see a difference in video quality. It's another reason why I wrote off the "Netflix on Fire is blurrier on Fire" comparison reviews - of course it is if Amazon didn't qualify for Netflix HD. (And yes, the Amazon version was noticiably blurrier as it was scaled up to the screen, whilst the Tablet was scaling down a higher-quality stream).
And the Nook tablet having 1GB of user content - big whoop. Do what you do with every other Android device and stick an SD card in it.
B&N feels more people would want higher-quality Netflix than the small crowd who wants to hack the device (they're a nice bunch, but not as big a group as those who just want to consume stuff).
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Informative)
(And yes, the Amazon version was noticiably blurrier as it was scaled up to the screen, whilst the Tablet was scaling down a higher-quality stream).
I think the HD stream is encoded with a higher bitrate (per pixel), and perhaps the Amazon scaler is crap. The HD/SD distinction isn't so much about resolution.
Good SD video with competent upscaling ought to be plenty for a 7" screen. I watched a few DS9 episodes on my Nook Color (CM7 w/Netflix) and there was quite a bit of block aritfacting and quantization noise (and ... buffering delays). Playing a DVD-ripped AVI (mplayer IIRC) looked great.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix's SD on Android is just plain "meh".
Netflix HD is pointless - I have yet to see a single item of HD content.
No (Score:2)
You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see any requirements under law that they have DRM. They may have contracted with the content owners that included that provision but there is no law requiring it. Lets not confuse safty with IP protection they are nowhere near each other.
Re: (Score:2)
That my point, that was in reply to the statement that Amazon had some legal requirements to implement DRM same as a restaurant has to not serve tainted food.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, this is coming from an Amazon Prime customer. I buy almost everything off of Amazon these days, with one exception: books. For that I have my Nook, which I use mainly because it reads PDFs too.
Except that the Kindle also reads PDFs too.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the Kindle reads PDFs as well.
I have a Kindle Keyboard (Wi-Fi) and all I have to do is copy the PDF over into the documents folder via the USB cable.
Re: (Score:2)
The Kindle can read PDFs. It just can't do ePub - although as I understand it, ePub can be easily converted to a format readable on the Kindle.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that they have released the code for all versions of Kindle (i.e. the eInk devices as well, including all historical ones), not just Kindle Fire. I don't think those run Android.
Re: (Score:2)
ummmm, my Kindle that i just bought reads PDF's as well. Did you have the original kindle or something?
Re: (Score:2)
The kindle reads PDFs as well, and has for years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"If the PDF's don't display correctly, use Calibre to convert them to mobi format."
This is downright funny.
Anyone that has used Calibre knows that it's convert PDF to anything else is so horrible that you end up with a complete mess that is unreadable.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that... ended up adding a 3rd party PDF reader from the app store instead of using the horrible included PDF reader for just that reason.
epub? (Score:2)
Amen to that... ended up adding a 3rd party PDF reader from the app store
Nevermind PDF what about epub? The lack of support for epub is my main reason for not buying a Kindle...well that and the fact that the only way to get them in Canada is to order them from the US, paying import duties exchange commission etc. and ending up with an unsupported device.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad. I was talking about the NC, not the Kindle. I think calibre might be able to convert epub to mobi...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought you could convert ePub to mobi with Calbre? I haven't tried it myself though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's always terrible. If I can only get a book in PDF, I just buy the paper copy :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not calibre's fault. and it converts textual pdf's just fine, just don't throw too many images etc. at it, which would be crap on a kindle anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By definition!
Re:All of 'em (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like this is just the GPL software. Nothing terribly exciting but maybe it has kernel drivers for the e-ink display. AFAIK the Kindle uses a locked bootloader so there is no way to actually get your ROM image running anyway. The Fire is a bit more promising, and the source release does seem to have kicked off a bit of interest in hacking it a bit, it's been rooted and Android market runs [eetimes.com]. I'll save you the 148MB download; here's the contents of Kindle_src_3.3_611680021.tar.gz:
gplrelease/
gplrelease/picocom-1.4.tar.gz
gplrelease/util-linux-2.12r.tar.bz2
gplrelease/atk-1.26.0.tar.bz2
gplrelease/uboot-1.3.0-rc3.tar.bz2
gplrelease/pango-1.24.5.tar.bz2
gplrelease/gstreamer-0.10.17.tar.bz2
gplrelease/taglib-1.5.tar.bz2
gplrelease/e2fsprogs-1.38_patch.tar.gz
gplrelease/fuse-2.7.1.tar.gz
gplrelease/libltdl-1.2.tar.bz2
gplrelease/libol-0.3.18.tar.gz
gplrelease/syslog-ng-1.6.11.tar.gz
gplrelease/busybox-1.7.2.tar.bz2
gplrelease/webkit-1.1.7.tar.bz2
gplrelease/e2fsprogs-1.38.tar.gz
gplrelease/wireless_tools.29.tar.gz
gplrelease/mtd-utils-1.0.0.tar.gz
gplrelease/pango-1.6.0.tar.bz2
gplrelease/lrzsz-0.12.20.tar.gz
gplrelease/gst-plugins-base-0.10.17.tar.bz2
gplrelease/libvolume-id_092.ipk
gplrelease/ifupdown_0.6.8.tar.gz
gplrelease/gst-plugins-good-0.10.6.tar.bz2
gplrelease/gst-plugins-base-0.10.6.tar.bz2
gplrelease/linux-2.6.26-lab126.tar.bz2
gplrelease/gnutls-2.8.4.tar.bz2
gplrelease/module-init-tools-3.2.2.tar.bz2
gplrelease/libgpg-error-1.4.tar.bz2
gplrelease/DirectFB-1.2.0.tar.bz2
gplrelease/libproxy-0.2.3.tar.bz2
gplrelease/module-init-tools-3.2.2_patch.tar.gz
gplrelease/glib-2.22.2.tar.bz2
gplrelease/udev-112.tar.bz2
gplrelease/alsa-lib-1.0.13_patch.tar.gz
gplrelease/enchant-1.4.2.tar.bz2
gplrelease/gtk+-2.16.5.tar.bz2
gplrelease/libgcrypt-1.4.4.tar.bz2
gplrelease/base-files_3.0.14.ipk
gplrelease/alsa-lib-1.0.13.tar.bz2
gplrelease/fuse-2.7.1_link.tar
gplrelease/dosfstools-2.11.tar.bz2
gplrelease/libsoup-2.30.0.tar.bz2
gplrelease/procps-3.2.7.tar.gz
gplrelease/procps-3.2.7_patch.tar.gz
gplrelease/base-passwd_3.5.9.tar.gz
gplrelease/powertop-1.10.tar.gz
gplrelease/iptables-1.3.3.tar.bz2
gplrelease/glibc-2.5.tar.bz2
gplrelease/alsa-utils-1.0.13_patch.tar.gz
gplrelease/alsa-utils-1.0.13.tar.bz2
gplrelease/gdb-6.6.tar.bz2
gplrelease/sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz
gplrelease/cairo-1.8.6.tar.bz2
Re: (Score:3)
And Kindle_src_6.1_11185402.tar.gz contains:
android-2.6.35 kernel
Some Android stuff (mainly webkit)
Some stuff from Texas Instruments (u-boot, x-loader)
The kernel source might be useful for drivers? The other stuff is already open-source projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Locked bootloader?
That's just not sporting, damn their eyes.
I now want my Touch 3G to arrive all the faster so I can poke at its insides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the source to the recent Kindle Fire, but code for all of them back to the original. Nice move.
I wonder if they held any bits back?
Just two.
Remote removing (Score:5, Interesting)
Is the sourcecode sufficient to disable Amazon's ability to remotely remove ebooks?
Re:Remote removing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes if someone compiles a new OS and software package and delivers a "hack" that eliminates their control.
I'm just betting the "ad supported" version will become the first target as someone compiles and makes a file that turns it into a normal kindle.
Then we will hear of a federal bailout of the Executives as they will barely afford new Mercedes once a month anymore....
Re:Remote removing (Score:5, Informative)
Those already exist for most kindles, with the only requirement being a jailbreak. The kindle is built upon a linux system, with a java framework and a bunch of shell scripts. The shell scripts are the important bits which handle downloading the ads & and there was also a mod to revoke amazon's control entirely.
Source: http://www.mobileread.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=150
Re: (Score:2)
is the source code enough for flashing it? (Score:2)
that's the question. otherwise it's only good for finding security flaws/bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Kindle Source (Score:2)
I know this gem is hidden somewhere in the Kindle source.
10 REM Write I hate Apple to Screen
20 print "I hate Apple"
30 goto 20
40 gosub Kindleforipad
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will, atleast Amazon knows how to redundantly comment code.
Re: (Score:2)
in basic, no less!
Re: (Score:2)
I even heard that Windows 7 is coded in BASIC. Although what Win 7 has to do with the best OS' I still have no idea.
Did they contribute? Is this actually full source? (Score:5, Informative)
I downloaded the source for Kindle_src_3.3_611680021.tar.gz (randomly picked).
The contents of their tarball is the below list of files. Which of these sub-tarballs contains the Amazon reader and interface software? Or are they just releasing the bare minimum required by the GPL and keeping their stuff proprietary? Can Kindle owners blank their devices and use the published tarball to restore all functionality?
Put another way: is there a contribution here, or are they just doing what's necessary to avoid getting sued?
Re:Did they contribute? Is this actually full sour (Score:5, Informative)
On the bright side, there seems to be enough stuff in there to port any Linux (including Android) system into the Kindle (or, saying that in another way, all the drivers seem to be there).
On the bad side, no the reader is not there, and you won't be able to remove their capacity of remotely excluding your books (except if you remove the reader). It is also not more than they are required by the (L)GPL, and there is nothing telling if the boot loader will accept a user supplied system, or if you'll need to root it like any other tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can remove only books with their DRM (that means, stuff you brought from Amazon). Also, they only removed one version, of the several they have available.
I'd buy a Kindle to use as a tablet if it is easy to hack and cheap enough (and meets the specs I need, and if they deliver it here). I'll certanly hack it if I buy one, and won't buy DRMed books (Kindle or not). Thus Amazon probably isn't amazed by the idea of selling it to me. I can see why they'd ignore the entire demographics that thinks like me.
Re: (Score:2)
Put another way: is there a contribution here, or are they just doing what's necessary to avoid getting sued?
One of the major lessons of cryptography is that every code is breakable, it's just a matter of how long it takes to break. Releasing a pile of open source is sort of like encryption in the clear, it will take time and effort to decode what has (and possibly has not) been released.
This release of source code should put a good light on Amazon until the Christmas shopping season is over, it will take at least that long for anyone who cares to stir up trouble for them if they haven't released something they s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, doesn't look to me like they released any of the proprietary stuff that makes it a Kindle. It's not surprising, really. GPL doesn't require it, and this is what makes their software what it is, so from their perspective there's no reason to do so.
Still, as has been pointed out, ideally this is all you'll need to write your own custom OS for Kindles.
Re: (Score:3)
"are they just doing what's necessary to avoid getting sued"
why should they do more if it isn't required?
Doing more than required is usually what it takes to "gain back supporters" like the summary suggests.
Personally I think they should fix the slow page-turns and other problems pointed out by reviewers.
Fulfilling a GPL requirement is fine; releasing extra code is great, but that's not going to help it sell anymore devices, except perhaps to a small segment of customers.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to gain back supporters.
The kinds of people who care about a source code release don't care about remote book wiping because their primary goal is likely CM7/CM9.
Amazon needs to do NOTHING to win these people over, since B&N drove them away with the Nook Tablet (locked bootloader).
Re: (Score:2)
Because if we, as customers, demand that they do, they'll have to. The way to demand it is to state that we dislike the fact they didn't, and go to someone who does, or if that someone doesn't exist, to someone who has provided more sources.
A source code release would be good for the customers, for the community and for the general progress of mobile devices such as ebook readers. That's why we should insist that source code should be released.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did by giving you the source. You can diff those packages against originals for a list of changes.
Gain back supporters? (Score:5, Insightful)
The remote book removal was 2 years ago, and helped shape Amazon (and much of the mobile tech industry) to be extremely weary of using kill switches. Frankly, I'm glad it happened. It immediately stopped the usual slow creep of increased user control.
I don't think this helps "gain back supporters", but I do think it reinforces Amazon as a company moving in their new direction since then. I like the Amazon model which tries to take the best of Google and the best of Apple, and throw out the worst parts. Tight product integration, but if you want to hack it, why bother stopping you.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people are very small-minded and hold the very few public PR failures a given company may have up as a totem to their evil nature.
cf. Sony Music's rootkit code for the other one that comes up all the time on Slashdot.
Companies that are better at hiding their evil ways get a free ride somehow among geeks, which makes no sense to me. Sadly, not all geeks are smart, some are just geeky.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, funny, you along with many others fail to recognize that Sony Music isn't the same as Sony Computer Entertainment, and outsourced that piece of software development in the first place.
Most of the other issues you list are PR silliness, very few are actually problematic. The PSN breach? Dozens of other major internet companies have had entire lists of customers and credit information pillaged in the last ten years, but we were all good and hard on Sony about it.
But yes, way to be exactly the Slashdott
Nothing to see here. (Score:5, Informative)
It's just a minimal GPL drop. No application level source. Unlike (for example) Netgear or Linksys, they don't even provide the object code and build tools to let you build your own usable device ROM image from a combination of proprietary and OSS components.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which is funny, because a minimal GPL drop requires:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
(from GPLv2 section 3)
How I read it, if I cannot reproduce the binary you produced, then you didn't really give me everything I needed by GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're reading it wrong. The code drop looks to be enough to get the /operating system/, but not the Kindle /application/.
If we did a naive reading of the GPL as you did, then it wouldn't be possible to run proprietary software without released source code on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
If we did a naive reading of the GPL as you did, then it wouldn't be possible to run proprietary software without released source code on Linux.
False. The user has the right to download proprietary software and run it on their GPL system. It's when the distributor bundles up some GPL parts and proprietary parts, and then ships it as a whole work that the GPL applies.
It's true that pretty much everybody ignores this aspect of the GPL and claims "mere aggregation", and even the vast majority of authors of GPL programs do not care about or believe in this interpretation of the license, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the license as written.
GPLv3 defines aggregate more precisely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I said I was done with this discussion as at the end you didn't provide counter-arguments and chose to engage in silly tactics instead, condescendingly assigning me "homework".
If you want an answer for this new line of inquiry then I expect an acknowledgment of this fact and an apology, as well as a promise to treat any future arguments in this debate with sincerity, respect, and intellectual honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want an answer for this new line of inquiry then I expect an acknowledgment of this fact and an apology
My Slashdot signature at the time I posted that comment was intended as such. If you happen to have signatures turned off in your Slashdot preferences, please allow me to reproduce it below:
--
I have made a fool of myself. Ubuntu is illegal [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
While you are right that I don't have signatures on, I don't consider that a direct apology nor acknowledgment of the behavior that prompted me to end the debate. I'm tired of these little parlor games. Bye.
DemandApology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can include the FSF in the list of authors of GPL programs who disagree with your interpretation.
Yes, I'm aware of this and find this interpretation bizarre in that it is ad hoc and overly specific, whereas the license is written in general terms on principles and isn't limited to technical mechanisms. In particular, any library can be wrapped by command lines or pipes -- why is it that a library that has been wrapped in this way suddenly "mere aggregation"? It doesn't make sense.
At least they have the good sense to say this: "This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide."
A common example would be the way many proprietary router web interfaces execute GPL utilities and receive their output via pipes or similar mechanisms.
There's been
Low coupling (Score:2)
In particular, any library can be wrapped by command lines or pipes -- why is it that a library that has been wrapped in this way suddenly "mere aggregation"?
First let's get some basic things out of the way. The output of a program is generally not a derivative work of the program itself. This means you can't GPL the output of a program unless the program copies itself into its output. If two independent programs are connected through a pipe or socket, one program's output is the other's input. If the application-level protocol over such a pipe or socket is documented in plain language, it's no different from a non-free web browser connecting to a GPL HTTP serv
Re: (Score:2)
The output of a program is generally not a derivative work of the program itself.
I agree, that is generally true, but that wasn't the basis of my argument.
If the application-level protocol over such a pipe or socket is documented in plain language, it's no different from a non-free web browser connecting to a GPL HTTP server, or running a non-free program in a GPL terminal emulator, or vice versa.
There's a huge difference, and it involves copyright. When you connect to a server, the GPL bits remain on the server. When you distribute the GPL bits along with your bits, then the terms of the GPL come into play.
I am unaware of any cases that have been tried, but I'd imagine the judge would distinguish between a larger work from an aggregate by looking at the degree of coupling.
I agree with the direction you are taking, but not your conclusions.
If the output of one program is defined simply as "that which the other program accepts", then the programs might as well be one work. But if the format of the data sent over the interface is clean enough that a programmer can develop a replacement for the program on either side of the interface, then the programs are more likely to be seen as independent.
It doesn't matter if a replacement could be developed. What counts is that you distributed a GPL component to do the job. My take on the coupling issue is
Is GIMP for Windows based on Windows? (Score:2)
When you connect to a server, the GPL bits remain on the server. When you distribute the GPL bits along with your bits, then the terms of the GPL come into play.
If I sold you a computer with a copy of Windows, a copy of Apache configured to serve only to localhost, and a copy of MediaWiki, would I be breaking the law? MediaWiki is GPL software, and it communicates with the Internet Explorer component of Windows through a socket.
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License
This hinges on the definition of "work based on the Program": "either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications". United St
Re: (Score:2)
If I sold you a computer with a copy of Windows, a copy of Apache configured to serve only to localhost, and a copy of MediaWiki, would I be breaking the law? MediaWiki is GPL software, and it communicates with the Internet Explorer component of Windows through a socket.
Probably, if MediaWiki was considered an important part. If you could drop MediaWiki from the distribution with negligible effect, then I would say no.
United States copyright law makes a distinction between a derivative work and a collective work, and I take "mere aggregation" to refer to such a collective work.
The license explicitly mentions collective works:
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
GIMP for Windows doesn't work when I take away Windows. So is GIMP for Windows based on Windows in a copyright law sense?
No, because you never distribute Windows as part of GIMP. We've alr
I have some homework for you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you lost the argument and have now shifted to silly tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I have lost the argument
You did. Every point you made was countered, and I provided direct quotations from the license that refuted your arguments.
then the strategy described in my silly tactic would be a way for you to make a lot of money.
I'm not going to make a "lot of money" by claiming rights to a patch, nor am I doing to do "homework" for you. I'm done with this discussion.
Kobo Source Code (Score:3)
You can get the full Kobo/Touch source code if you e-mail their support staff and wait two to four weeks.
And then you can't really do jack-squat with it.
Which is infuriating because the features most people want to steal from the Kindle are amazingly easy to implement in the Qt environment the Kobo uses.
Just the GPL requirements, not full source (Score:2)
Last time I looked at the code it was just things like busybox.tar.gz and kernel.tar.gz, just to comply with the GPL. You can download all that lot from Sourceforge FFS.
Its not like you can actually compile you own Kindle OS from what they're distributing, there's no Makefile or documentation on how all the bits glue together.
Its certainly not like Android where you can compile your own phone OS (if you have the proprietary blobs for gfx/gps etc.)
A shell prompt would suffice (Score:2)
Hacks to get a simple (root) shell prompt to the Kindle are actually a lot more useful than this source drop. Google is your friend. Use at your own risk. Slippery when wet.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, knowing exactly what code was built can be handy in finding those hacks to get a simple root prompt and such. Knowing they used busybox tells you nowhere as much as having the exact source that was built.
Little frog, Big pond. (Score:4, Insightful)
but perhaps Amazon releasing the source code to the Kindle will help it gain back supporters it lost after remotely removing ebooks.
You are talking about one of the hottest products on the market.
"Winning back" the geek is not all that important.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, the geeks like me want the coolest device and know how to get the DRM off the books. I wonder if Amazon really cares; as long as it involves one consumer-unfriendly step (such as installing a Python interpreter), then the system works well enough to keep the publishers happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone care to take this source code and produce a largely "stock" OS but add in the sorely lacking ability to be able to natively read the EPUB format of ebooks?
I'm sure thousands of Kindle owners would be eternally grateful.
While that is a good suggestion and I expect that somebody will implement EPUB support for Kindle (if it hasn't already been done), I really think that people who would be eternally grateful for EPUB support really should have bought ... well, pretty much any e-book reader that isn't the Kindle [wikipedia.org]. Why give your money to support the one player who wants to lock you in by refusing to support standards?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the only reader with a letter size e-ink display of decent resolution?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Just possible upstreaming of patches to gpl projects. nothing to see here really.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It gives you the versions and specific source for the binaries included.
Meaning, if you can identify a flaw in any of that code, you can execute it on the Kindle.