Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Android Cellphones Handhelds Open Source

Samsung Galaxy Note II Source Code Released 32

An anonymous reader writes "Samsung has released the source code for the Samsung GALAXY Note II. This clears the way for custom ROM's for the smartphone. From the article: 'It's now been posted for the international GT-N7100 model, giving developers a peek at the 5.5-incher's inner workings and allowing them to get to work on new mods.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Galaxy Note II Source Code Released

Comments Filter:
  • by admdrew ( 782761 ) on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:38PM (#41587831) Homepage
    ...and currently just links to the main Engadget page. Please fix by taking out that extra L at the end of the link: []
  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:48PM (#41587997)

    Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.

    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    are met:
    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
            notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
            notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
            documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


    • by Flipao ( 903929 ) on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:55PM (#41588125)
      I'm just going to leave this here, so I can come back to it a couple years from now, when Apple unveils their "revolutionary" iPhone Ink, with a big display and the ability to accept both capacitive touch and pen input. "This changes everything again... again"
    • Is that the Webkit source? Some of that is in the 2 clause BSD licence, and Apple are involved in it. The original authors were the KDE project though.

  • meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aaron552 ( 1621603 ) on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:55PM (#41588131) Homepage
    The exynos chipsets are a nightmare for device maintainers. The kernel source certainly helps, but the binary blobs for the device drivers, HAL, RIL, hwcomposer, etc. are still going to have to be hacked around.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's better than nothing, and it's because of them we can be sure to see custom firmwares like CyanogenMod within days, more likely hours of its release. And it's definitely better than most other manufacturers that wait months to release the source (or those that don't at all).

      • Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7&cornell,edu> on Monday October 08, 2012 @03:05PM (#41589033) Homepage

        Wrong. If you look at the history of CM bringups, kernel source is a small part of the equation.

        I have no idea why this was able to make Slashdot. Really, since when is an Android manufacturer doing the utterly bare legal minimum of what they are required to do by the GPL newsworthy? Do we even know if they're even complying with the GPL with this release? (See below...)

        As to CyanogenMod on Note 2 - It's not going to happen unless a new maintainer steps up to the plate. None of the current Exynos maintainers have any intention on purchasing any additional non-Nexus Exynos devices. We're tired of Samsung's constant GPL violations (Frequently, their source releases do NOT match that of shipped devices - for example none of the source releases for the Note 10.1 produce a viable BCM4334 driver for wi-fi.) and of their total lack of cooperation with the open source community.

        Take a look at the omapzoom (TI) reference platform source. Take a look at CodeAurora (Qualcomm) reference platform source. Then take a look at the Insignal git repos, or one of Hardkernel's 2GB tarballs. Note that of the two latter examples (both for Exynos), neither has a respository with any git history. They also don't even remotely match anything that is in Samsung's shipped devices in addition to being vastly outdated. If you use the Hardkernel or Insignal hardwarecomposer source code on a device, and then completely delete hwcomposer, you will see ZERO DIFFERENCE in behavior!

        Background: I am the CyanogenMod co-maintainer for the AT&T Galaxy S II (SGH-I777), International Galaxy Note (GT-N7000), and Note 10.1 (GT-N8013). The GT-N8013 is my last non-Nexus Exynos device as I'm tired of working with an undocumented platform with no source code and broken hacked-up binaries. On a regular basis, the quality of CM on Exynos devices lags months behind OMAP and Qualcomm devices due to this. I'd like to, for once, be able to actually maintain a device that's in good shape and start focusing on adding new features, instead of constantly fighting massive bugs due to the lack of documentation of Samsung's blobs. (Of which we have FAR more to deal with than OMAP or Qualcomm devices.)

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          Mod this up!!!!

          If you have no idea what he just said, his 3-digit UID and Cornell e-mail should give you a hint that he knows his shit.

          • Odd correlation based on the 3-digit UID and Cornell e-mail, however, it is an insight to CyanogenMod to which I was not aware. I have great respect for the CyanogenMod team, as they have done some fantastic work on a number of Android devices.
        • I'm rather surprised by this. Didn't cyanogen get hired by Samsung? Why aren't Samsung's open source releases and documentation better?

          • Re:meh (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7&cornell,edu> on Monday October 08, 2012 @04:51PM (#41590195) Homepage

            He works for Samsung USA. Samsung Korea is the one controlling nearly anything Exynos-related. The situation for Qualcomm and OMAP-based Samsungs is quite a bit better - While it seems he doesn't have the authority to use any source code outside of what is available from CAF, the fact is he has a high degree of familiarity with these devices and hence knows how to get the CAF stuff to work VERY well. (The USA guys have, historically, primarily worked with Qualcomm-based devices.)

            The CM Exynos maintainers do have a contact within Samsung Korea, but nearly all of the time when our contact forwards requests to the relevant department, the answer is either "no" or it is a blatant lie. (See the above comment about the Note 10.1 GPL compliance issues - the OSRC guys actually had the balls to claim that the UEALGB build, which was preinstalled on every Note 10.1 sold in the USA for at least one month, was a "leak" and hence they didn't have to provide source that matched it.) Our contact DOES care and wants to make a difference, but their management and the other departments within Samsung Mobile are completely noncooperative.

            • BTW as an SGH-1777 owner, thanks! Running a CM10 without issues.

            • What if any motivation to lie is there? Does samsung somehow lose money when one installs CM? Or is it just a case of "You're annoying me with your requests, fuck you."

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.