Google Serves a Cease-and-Desist On Android Modder

Several readers sent in word that Google has served a Cease and Desist order to Cyanogen, one of the most prolific Android modders: his CyanogenMod is enjoyed by 30,000 users. The move is puzzling. Gizmodo wonders what Google's game is, and Lauren Weinstein calls the move "not of the high 'Googley' caliber" that one would expect of the company.

Comments

License missing

[sopssa]

Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail and so on require a license to distribute them. Cyanogen doesn't have one. Google C&D's because of that. Case closed.

Re:License missing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Google is clearly within their rights to C&D over those applications. The curious question, though, is "why would they do so?". Cyanogen is distributed for phones that shipped with those apps anyway(so it isn't as though there is any huge pile of licensing revenue on the table here), and copyrights, unlike trademarks, don't have to be defended unless you want to.

There must be some reason why Google would risk upsetting a group made up, more or less, of self-selected enthusiasts of Android and its continued development, in exchange for no obvious money. Is Google confident enough in the value of its apps that it sees those Google specific apps as a future distinguishing feature for Android phones, one that OEMs will pay good money for? Are potential telco partners pissed that Cyanogen is something eminently worth rooting your handset for?

The existence of their legal right is uncontroversial; but I find their potential motives a bit baffling.

Re:License missing

[Elros]

In some cases, failure to sufficiently defend one's rights to some IP (intellectual property) results in the inability to defend it in the future. I.e. If Google gets in the habit of knowingly allowing re-distribution of their applications with out a license, they loose any right to enforce the copyright in the future.

Re:License missing

[BlueBlade]

Like the parent said, that only applies to trademarks and not to copyright.

Re:License missing

[ajs]

It's pretty clear that Google goes way out of its way to provide APIs and guidance on using its stuff as a third party, so I suspect that there's specifics in this C&D that aren't just "you used our service." Specifically, if they were re-packaging Google's logos or the like, then there's real copyright concerns there.

Re:License missing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only for trademarks. Copyright and patents doesn't require defending hence why you see patent trolls wait until a product is well-entrentched before they sue them for "damages."

I can understand Google's viewpoint on this. Assuming Cyanogen wants to continue to distribute the programs, they can always just go through the proper channels first. Then they would have a stance if Google was being slow or rejected them. It's really an issue of google protecting themselves. They probably want to avoid legal hassles that involve 3rd party distributors (where the binaries could be modified without google's knowledge or infected with a virus unintentionally or other things).

Re:License missing

[R2.0]

I'm guessing it's like having a pickup game of softball at your local municipal field, and you get busted. Why? You need a permit. It's free and easy to get, but you still need to get it.

Google's saying "We ask everybody else to play by these rules, which aren't even onerous, so you need to as well."

Re:License missing

[Nethemas the Great]

I suspect it may have to do with Google being perceived as permissive of unsanctioned modding--a thing of great concern for carriers. Up to this point Google has only had a very limited success penetrating the U.S. market with phones running Android. Google could be trying to bolster its image with carriers by stopping (limiting) rogue phones.

Re:License missing

[Chelloveck]

Like the parent said, that only applies to trademarks and not to copyright.

You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?

Re:License missing

[Overly Critical Guy]

It's amazing how quickly Slashdotters will rush to defend Google over anything. I notice you've made many other comments in this story defending Google. If this was Microsoft, they'd be portrayed as the greedy corporation exploiting software licenses to shut down freedom. When it's Google, we're supposed to shut our eyes and cover our ears. "Case closed."

Re:License missing

[Threni]

> Google is clearly within their rights to C&D over those applications. The curious question, though, is "why would they do so?"

Because they don't want to lose the ability to continue to license IP required for Google maps etc from third parties.

Re:License missing

[Hatta]

Why is this guy distributing the modded ROM and not a patch for the ROM? Surely if you're capable enough to change the ROM on your phone, you're capable of applying a patch first.

Re:License missing

[jeffasselin]

Laches might still apply.

Re:License missing

[FunkyELF]

Makes sense. Cyanogen should stop shipping with those apps. They are available in the Market anyway. Everyone is happy.
I just got a MyTouch 3g and have yet to root it. I hope Cyanogen is still around when I get the time. I want tether!

Re:License missing

[mcgrew]

In some cases, failure to sufficiently defend one's rights to some IP (intellectual property) results in the inability to defend it in the future. I.e. If Google gets in the habit of knowingly allowing re-distribution of their applications with out a license, they set free any right to enforce the copyright in the future.

1. The "some IP" is trademarks. You don't lose copyright by not defending it.
2. Note that "loose" means to set free. You look like an illiterate. See my sig.

Re:License missing

[Mister Whirly]

Hey, you spelled "Apple" wrong.

Re:License missing

[cptdondo]

I can't RTFM right now - slashdotted - but the TOS for using Google Maps for example is very explicit and very limited. (You can only use Google Maps from within browser, and you cannot cache the images.) Google doesn't necessarily own the data; they have licensing agreements with data providers. So Google has to uphold its agreement with the data providers.

While I personally have abandonded using Google Maps for my project because of the license - something I find frustrating and disappointing - it is, after all, the agreeement Google must live by and enforce.

Re:License missing

[Anonymous Coward]

He included the applications in the ROM. He is distributing closed source apps, that specifically are meant to only be distributed by Google themselves.

Re:License missing

[nabsltd]

You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?

And, so what?

If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking? And, if I choose to advertise the fact that I am selling that same product and want to use the trademarked name in my advertisement, Microsoft has no grounds to stop me. They can force me to specifically state that the name is trademarked by them, but that's all.

Trademark exists not to protect businesses, but to protect consumers. That way, you know that if it says "Microsoft" or "Sony" or "Intel", or uses similar packaging, you won't be getting a product from some other company (like "Sorny"). And, this is the crux of why trademark has to be defended or else it is lost.

Re:License missing

[Anonymous Coward]

No they aren't. The only protected app available on the market is the Maps application.

The main issue with this is that the android device is so tightly integrated with the Google Cloud and IIRC there is no API to recreate the Dialer app publicly available.

Re:License missing

[morgan_greywolf]

Trademarks have nothing to do with distribution, or at least not in the way you think.

If I buy a Nike T-Shirt. It has a Nike logo on it. If I sell it to you, did I just commit trademark infringement? No? Why not?

I can write Gmail, Gmail, Gmail all day long and Google can't sue me so long as I'm referring to Google's product and I'm not using it to imply that I am the provider of or affiliated with Gmail or Google in any way.

Now if the binaries are modified in anyway, they are NOT Gmail and Google Maps and Google Docs. At that point, I'm trying to pass off a derivative work as Gmail or Google Maps. Now I'm infringing on copyrights and trademarks!

Re:License missing

[Hadlock]

Or a noise permit! >:) Having a noise permit for parties in highschool was (literally) a get out of jail free card.

Re:License missing

[jellomizer]

Hey I know a genuine Penephonics when I see one.

Re:License missing

[wrygrin]

i understand the bind that google/android is up against, and think it is terrible both in principle and in personal impact.

in order to limit copy-access to android app executables, android depends on sequestering apps in phone storage. while most app producers don't care about limiting access to their executables (apk's), some commercial vendors do. (some common evidence of this is the way that most apps are available for copying by android backup programs like MyBackup Pro, but some aren't.) of course, root access defeats this sequestering - and, in fact, the biggest performance advantage on machines like my G1 is due to jiggering things, with symlinks, etc, so that app storage (as well as some resource cache storage) is physically on the SD card.

the terrible bind is that, on phones like the G1, the phone-storage RAM (192 MB) is a critical resource shared across operational and storage functions, so that the phone works terribly if you have too many apps. and "too many", for a phone that's supposed to be very multi-purpose and extensible, is disturbingly few. it really is a fatal flaw - until i upgraded to cyanogen's mod, things like scrolling would fail to respond most of the time, returning to the home screen or starting an app could take on the order of minutes, etc. and this after i removed a lot of apps, including ones that were occasionally crucial. after upgrading to cyanogen the device works like an, um, dream. i can run everything i need, and more, and the phone is sliced-bread-caliber useful with quick, smooth responsiveness. happy dance!-) now they're bringing down the boot on my savior. darn.

it seems obvious to me that google can't afford to allow undermining of their key provision for proprietary vendors who don't want their .apk's loose in the wild. it's a platform-policy agreement they made. it seems equally obvious to me that this is a damn shame - a profound architectural restriction solely for the purpose of a few overly restrictive vendors, who also happen to be some of the big vendors.

(from many comments, elsewhere, about similar relief from upgrading to cyanogen, i see that my experience with the G1 is not unusual. going back to the standard android release is not an option, so figure i'll stick with my cyanogen install until my contract is up, sometime early next year, and by then there should be other android devices with a physical keyboard and without the cripplingly insufficient amount of RAM. i truly am sad that google is in this bind, and feel that the current arrangement for securing apk's is profoundly flawed, and finding a different approach deserves substantial effort.)

ken

Re:License missing

[PitaBred]

More than that. Google Maps uses data that Google licenses, and is only allowed to use in certain ways. If any of his apps or mods went afoul of Google's agreements, then they're obligated to put a stop to it. The article link is dead, so I can't verify if this is or isn't the case.

Re:License missing

[Yvan256]

The word you're looking for is Panaphonics.

Re:License missing

[neo]

If I buy a Nike T-Shirt. It has a Nike logo on it. If I sell it to you, did I just commit trademark infringement? No? Why not?

The difference is this. You buy Nike T-Shirts then print some slogan on them and then either sell them or give them away. What you've done is now made it appear the slogan is from Nike (or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.)

Yes, this is a problem, isn't it.

Re:License missing

[morgan_greywolf]

Okay, so how does this apply to this situation? Only someone using their Android with a drool-proof shield wrapped around it could possibly think that the CyanogenMod ROM came from Google.

Re:License missing

[Trouvist]

Very off topic, but you did reference your sig. I think you should go look up the English pronunciations of those words because:
- "owl" doesn't sound like "oll", even remotely
- "wise" doesn't sound like "ways", even remotely

to me, sounding that signature out sounds like: I owel wize ewws a spill chucker so I no mai spelling is core wrecked"; note that "wrecked" and "recked" don't sound the same

"always use a spell checker so I know my spelling is correct"

Re:License missing

[Troed]

You seem to be confusing RAM and internal flash storage.

Re:License missing

[Orange Crush]

Except you can't access the market without the market app.

Re:License missing

[FatdogHaiku]

Okay, so how does this apply to this situation? Only someone using their Android with a drool-proof shield wrapped around it could possibly think that the CyanogenMod ROM came from Google.

Hey, where do I get one of those drool-proof shields?
It would be handy when looking at m.xnxx.com, I mean sales figures... yeah, charts and graphs and stuff...

Re:License missing

[12345Doug]

Not in this case it's one and the same.

Re:License missing

[jim_v2000]

"Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail and so on require a license to distribute them."

How does one distribute an online service?

Re:License missing

[Troed]

No. The amount of apps you store would not affect the amount of RAM and vice versa, which is what you seem to imply in your post.

the phone-storage RAM (192 MB) is a critical resource shared across operational and storage functions, so that the phone works terribly if you have too many apps

vs

Memory 192 MB DDR SDRAM 256 MB Flash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Dream

Re:License missing

[wrygrin]

You seem to be confusing RAM and internal flash storage.

i don't think so, but i could be mistaken.

the specs are 192 MB RAM and 256 MB EEPROM. i believe that the eeprom holds the firmware loader and static OS elements, while the RAM is used for active operating memory and varying elements of the internal-phone filesystem, including apk storage, data caches for things like gmail and the browser, and so on.

i can tell you that the space available for the .apks starts at something like 75 MB total. that's quickly consumed (with some substantial apps taking several MB apiece), and i experienced awful performance problems even though i left 12 to 17 MB (depending on how recently i cleared the caches).

Re:License missing

[wrygrin]

(on second thought, i suppose the eeprom must be used, to preserve dynamic parts of the filesystem across reboots. in any case, the phone performance gets awful as apps increase.)

Re:License missing

[omega_dk]

Citation or you're wrong.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html (see #5)

Re:License missing

[blueskies]

You mean like giving people free frisbees or Kleenexes or Legos?

Re:License missing

[Troed]

You are mistaken. Maybe you're just running too much in the background (which is different from having many applications stored)

If the amount of available RAM would decrease much below 192MB total you would not be able to start new applications at all ;)

http://forums.androidandme.com/topic/how-much-free-memory-is-good

Re:License missing

[pookie13]

Goes bit offtopic but this reminds me of a Finnish electronic music band Pan Sonic. They had to change their name from Panasonic to Pan Sonic because they were threatened by Panasonic with a law suite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansonic

Like they would ever be mixed with each other.

Re:License missing

[omega_dk]

Laches only applies (according to the US supreme court) in cases where there is no other statutory limit, unlike copyright. Until the US supreme court changes that precedent, laches does NOT apply to copyright.

Re:License missing

[cowboy76Spain]

Which map do you use? I am still starting my project and it could happen that I need to display the data in a public map service (still have not done any analysis is Google Maps suits me or not?

Re:License missing

[wrygrin]

hmm. i'm running more in the background now than i was before, because there are some apps which have background jobs (eg, google voice, selfhelp) which i couldn't afford to have on the phone at all, space wise. no problems now, except for some problematic apps (eg, where).

i would often try killing background tasks (using advanced task manager, very nice), but never got signficant improvement - to the point of killing all.

Re:License missing

[Wodin]

[...]and learn how to spell "lose" (rhymes with "news") correctly.

I agree on the spelling, but "lose" and "news" only rhyme if you're American.

Re:License missing

[Troed]

If you're comparing non-Cyanogen with Cyanogen remember that his mod does more than just making you able to transfer apps to SD-card when it comes to performance. Being an almost-Donut will result in quite a few speed improvements, as will using more CPU resources.

Re:License missing

[harlows_monkeys]

The map data in Google Maps isn't Google's. Google licenses it from someone else. That license has restrictions on how the data can be used. For example, it can't be used for turn-by-turn GPS navigation, which is why all such programs on the iPhone come with their own map data.

I suspect that the terms of the license Google has includes a clause that requires Google to vigorously protect the data. Even if there is no such requirement in the license, so that Google could just step back and leave it to the upstream to pursue Cyanogen, Google may not want to do that, out of fear that the upstream might decide it is easier to just cut Google off.

Re:License missing

[multisync]

You buy Nike T-Shirts then print some slogan on them and then either sell them or give them away. What you've done is now made it appear the slogan is from Nike (or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.)

Yes, this is a problem, isn't it.

Huh?

So I buy a Chevy car, put a "Breasts Not Bombs" bumper sticker on it, then either sell the car or give it away. According to you, what I've just done is made it appear the slogan is from Chevy, or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.

Or I buy a Dell Laptop, peel off the "Ready for Vista" sticker and put a Tux sticker on it, sell it to someone. Dell's going to stop me because their Trade Mark is on it? I don't think so.

Even if Nike, Chevy or Dell could make the case that I was making it appear they endorsed the slogan, Trade Mark law wouldn't be relevant. Trade Mark law prevents me from selling a knock-off with someone's Trade Mark, or a confusingly similar mark, on it. What you're talking about is something entirely different, and frankly I don't think the manufacturer would have much say in the matter.

Re:License missing

[doom]

Bingo. Google has a bunch of lawyers that sit in a room making sure that the IP of google is protected. They found a case where a license was being violated, and responded as they are paid to do. I don't know why these kind of things always turn into a debate about whether a company is evil or not... this has nothing to do with that, and people need to stop reading so much into these kinds of cases.

In which case it's a sign that the company has been taken over by it's lawyers, who are not being restrained by any other concerns, e.g. public relations, and so on.

Google's founding mythology is that it is different from the usual corporation. it's entirely appropriate that people continue to debate how well it's living up to it's pretensions. One reason you might prefer an Android to an iPhone is that the Android is not supposed to be locked down...

There's a trend at the moment for everyone to put their entire virtual existence into Google's hands (gmail, google docs, Android). One of the reasons people are comfortable with this is Google's reputation for virtue. This kind of muscle-flexing makes one wonder about that.

Re:License missing

[Anonymous Coward]

The curious question, though, is "why would they do so"
Google want to control their platform. They don't mind if you develop software for their platform, but they still want to be in control of their platform. As usual these business moves always come back at their core to a need to control. Many corporate minded people suffer (some) openness as a way to get people to work for them (often for free) to help build up their platform, but they still want to be in control.

Also its Wikipedia page has now been deleted - today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyanogenMod "This page has been deleted."

Why because the Wikipedia isn't surely dependent on Google?. If Google and the Wikipedia are not careful, they are both going to get associated with the editing behaviour of the 1984 Ministry Of Truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_truth

Re:License missing

[PCM2]

Right, and that's a legitimate copyright issue.

But GP was talking about Google logos etc. -- and in that case, it's a trademark issue. If Google allows third parties to ship binary applications complete with Google trade dress, it risks losing its trademarks. Trademark law requires you to defend your trademarks to prove that you still want them; otherwise they revert to public domain.

If there was a way for the modded OS to include versions of Google's apps recompiled with all the trademarked icons etc. removed, they could change the name to "IceGeeMail" or something, and they'd be in the clear. But there's no way to do that, since these are closed-source apps, so we're back to the aforementioned copyright issue.

So you could argue that the folks at Google are kinda being dicks about the whole thing, but to be fair, they hardly have any choice in the matter.

Re:License missing

[PCM2]

If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking?

Possibly none. Microsoft might have a different opinion on the matter.

But these guys aren't selling you a genuine boxed copy of the Google apps. They're selling you unlicensed copies which carry the Google trade dress, including logos and other collateral.

You say, "So what? They're the same apps" -- which is exactly why trademark exists in the first place. Because it has registered trademarks, only Google is permitted to conduct trade using those marks. It doesn't matter if the binaries are bit-for-bit identical. Google gets to say whether the apps are "authentic" or not.

Re:License missing

[dangitman]

WTF? How do they pronounce it in other English speaking countries? I've heard plenty of British people say those words, and they still rhyme.

Re:License missing

[dangitman]

It's amazing how quickly Slashdotters will rush to defend Google over anything. I notice you've made many other comments in this story defending Google. If this was Microsoft, they'd be portrayed as the greedy corporation exploiting software licenses to shut down freedom. When it's Google, we're supposed to shut our eyes and cover our ears. "Case closed."

It's amazing how quickly slashdotters rush to bring out this tired trope whenever they read a comment they don't agree with, saying if it was [Company X] instead of [Company Y] then they'd be [outraged/gushing/the epitome of evil].

Here's a tip: slashdot commenters don't have a hive mind, they are individuals with varying opinions.

Re:License missing

[tagno25]

I bought a Google Dev Phone 1 for the ability to do just this! I use modded roms for the added benefits like multi-touch and root access control.

Re:License missing

[shrykk]

Instead of moderating, I'd like to ask you politely to stop using the term 'intellectual property', unless you genuinely need a quick way to refer to all three of copyrights, trademarks and patents in one go.

Enough confusion abounds already without mixing together the different rights and obligations of three different legal rights.

In this case, some included trademarks might arguably need defending, but the same doesn't apply to copyrights. (With patents, I understand there is the issue of 'sleeping on your rights', laches, but that's another matter).

Re:License missing

[hvidstue]

What ...? You need - a permit - to play ..? Sick world you live in :-S

Re:License missing

[laughingcoyote]

No, case not closed. Firstly, the assertion of the ones behind cyanogen are that it distributes them only to devices already licensed to use them. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if that makes any difference, but I doubt you are or know either. Google's granted a lot of "blanket" licensing for these applications.

That being said, even if he's technically not licensed, I think the question is more "Is this a smart move on Google's part, even if they're technically legally correct?" One of the main reasons I've been considering an Android phone has been Apple's behavior with the iPhone, and the comparative openness of the Android platform. This gives me pause on doing it at all.

But, all that being said, a lot better can be done than to complain here. If you think the decision sucks, tell Google.

Re:License missing

[ajs]

... you could argue that the folks at Google are kinda being dicks about the whole thing, but to be fair, they hardly have any choice in the matter.

I'm still not sure I'm seeing it. They have closed source apps on top of an open source OS. You are free to blow away the whole lot or write replacements for the closed source bits or re-write the open source bits or do whatever you like as long as you don't violate copyright law by re-packaging those closed source apps without a license. Someone did just that and Google asked them to stop.

Re:License missing

[RivieraKid]

Well, here in Blighty, lose is pronounced with a long o, as in 'oo', while news is pronounced as n-use, or n-you-s.

Re:License missing

[ScrewMaster]

I can't RTFM right now - slashdotted - but the TOS for using Google Maps for example is very explicit and very limited. (You can only use Google Maps from within browser, and you cannot cache the images.

So how can I be using it on my phone NOT in a web browser

Presumably within a licensed proprietary application, such as Google Maps.

Re:License missing

[ScrewMaster]

It's not wrong, it's British spelling. You Americans should learn to respect other cultures.

You Brits spell Apple as M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T? Damn, I thought I was in trouble when my girlfriend asked me to stash her purse in the boot. Must be that whole Queen's English thing, I guess.

Re:License missing

[PCM2]

No, you're mistaken. Someone repackaged the whole thing without blowing away the closed-source apps. That's the only issue Google had with it.

Capitalism means crisis

[For a Free Internet]

Google is trying to postpone the inevitable crash of its hyperinflated fictitious capital.

Only a planned economy under workers Soviet control can provide for the needs of all and advance human culture.

Reforge the Fourth International, world party of socialist revolution!

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[PhreakOfTime]

Neither do fiat currencies. They all end up crumbling in exactly the same way.

Did your history book also mention that?

So, since ALL systems of humanity eventually fail, wouldnt it be more important to look at the quality of life that exists under these systems for the brief periods that they exist?

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

Planned economies do not work. End of story. Crack a history book sometime.

All economies are planned to some extent, and none are completely.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[CannonballHead]

quality of life that exists under these systems for the brief periods that they exist?

Ah... but just how brief are those brief periods, and just how bloody are the times surrounding the brief periods? It seems that communism tends to be quite bloody surrounding the "brief" times of peace and "prosperity." Incidentally, I'm not sure how many communist countries have been prosperous. For people other than the leaders, I mean.

And by the way, you're still going to have terrorists and the like, even if USA was communist. The current wacko Islamic terrorists aren't anti-USA because of capitalism and because of how inhumane the USA is or something.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[gunnk]

Actually, a fiat currency IS a type of planned economy. With a fiat currency the government can manipulate the value of its currency. In many, many cases said government finally gets too greedy and manipulates the currency to the point that no one trusts it and the value plummets towards zero. In any case, though, controlling the nominal value of the currency is a tool governments with fiat currencies use to manipulate (i.e.: plan) their economy.

I think fiat currencies are inherently risky due to the high probability of government overreach, but I disagree with your comment that all fiat currencies are doomed to fail. The only failed fiat currencies that can be mentioned in history books are those that have failed. Ones that haven't failed still exist, so their failure is not recorded. You therefore cannot invoke history to claim that all fiat currencies fail as long as there are fiat currencies still in existence that have been viable for long time periods. (This is not to say they won't fail, only the the "history shows" argument is fallacious).

Finally, saying that "all systems of humanity eventually fail" suffers from the same sort of problems. I can point to many human systems that have existed for millennia and continue to work for us (think agriculture, trade, language, writing... none have passed away and few seem destined to do so in the foreseeable future).

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Dragonslicer]

It seems that communism tends to be quite bloody surrounding the "brief" times of peace and "prosperity." Incidentally, I'm not sure how many communist countries have been prosperous.

That's because none of them were truly socialist (using the "trying to do what benefits society as a whole" definition), but evil dictatorships that used the promises of Communism to seize control from the previously existing economic powers. For better examples, take a look at some European countries (and other European-style countries such as Canada).

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Anonymous Codger]

Two possible responses to this:

1. WHOOSH

2. To be serious, there are two lessons we should have learned from the history of the past 150 years.
        a. Communism doesn't work.
        b. Capitalism doesn't work.
What does work is a system in which capitalism drives the economy, but a strong central government keeps the capitalists in check.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[nedlohs]

You mean like China?

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[PhreakOfTime]

agriculture - slash-and-burn - while not faded away, contains the seeds of its own destruction and is not practiced on a large-scale as it has been replaced by other systems

Language - latin - its not called a dead language for nothing. Replaced by another, and more efficient system of language

Writing - Hieroglyphics - Not around anymore either. Also replaced by a more efficient system of writing.

ALL of those things failed, and were replaced by other systems. The structure of the current money supply will also fail, and be replaced by a more efficient system. Im not predicting when that will happen, just that it will happen. Just like it has happened to every system throughout history. Its the basic definition of progress. Sometimes it comes from whats best known as 'creative destruction', sometimes it comes about gradually.

I understand what you are trying to say, but think of it this way. Is it any different to say that ALL suns will die, and knowing the fundamental reasons why, to also say that our own sun will die? Sure history hasnt shown that our sun has died yet, so is the understanding of the underlying reasons for making that statement somehow negated ? The point I am making, and that you seem to also understand, is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that a fiat currency works in a society. That flaw eventually leads to its demise.

*The Federal Reserve isnt any more 'federal' than Federal Express is. They are both corporations. Its not government that is inflating the values of fiat currencies.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[nomadic]

Language - latin - its not called a dead language for nothing. Replaced by another, and more efficient system of language

Latin isn't inefficient; it's actually a fairly well-constructed language with far more logical consistency than the languages that sprang from it.

The point I am making, and that you seem to also understand, is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that a fiat currency works in a society. That flaw eventually leads to its demise.

That's not a point, it's an opinion.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[CannonballHead]

using the "trying to do what benefits society as a whole" definition

There's a human-nature problem with expecting that. I think that's where a lot of "communism" fails. It's difficult to set up a system that deals with human nature correctly. Of course, that depends on what you think human nature is...

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Rue C Koegel]

u can't claim that ALL systems of humanity fail, many have never been allowed to function to their designed purpose... perspectively u could say then that they already failed... but then u'd be an a$$hat!

many were overtaken by other brute forces that replaced them, despite their ability to function just fine... just because somebody decided to be an a$$hat.

plus since humanity is still ticking along not ALL human systems have failed or we wouldn't exist today, and you wouldn't be able to make such blatantly ridiculous remarks on slashdot!

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Dragonslicer]

There's a human-nature problem with expecting that. I think that's where a lot of "communism" fails. It's difficult to set up a system that deals with human nature correctly. Of course, that depends on what you think human nature is...

Absolutely. That is, by the way, exactly why I used the word "trying". Personally, I think many of the basic principles of socialism are nice ideals, but I know that it's somewhere between very difficult and impossible to get them to work in the real world. And of course, anything can be ruined by power-hungry or corrupt leaders, which would really be the complete opposite of communism.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Chyeld]

agriculture - slash-and-burn - while not faded away, contains the seeds of its own destruction and is not practiced on a large-scale as it has been replaced by other systems

Language - latin - its not called a dead language for nothing. Replaced by another, and more efficient system of language

Writing - Hieroglyphics - Not around anymore either. Also replaced by a more efficient system of writing.

ALL of those things failed, and were replaced by other systems. The structure of the current money supply will also fail, and be replaced by a more efficient system. Im not predicting when that will happen, just that it will happen. Just like it has happened to every system throughout history. Its the basic definition of progress. Sometimes it comes from whats best known as 'creative destruction', sometimes it comes about gradually.

For someone who names themselves PhreakOfTime, you have an... interesting view of it. Latin died because the Roman Empire died. It had nothing to do with inefficiencies, simply a lack of an overarching group to maintain it. You may have heard of this nifty class of languages called the "Romance Languages". Want to guess why they are called that?

Here's a clue (well more of a spoiler): it's because they are based on Latin and were formed after the fall of the Empire allowed regional dialects to be created. Each and every one was formed from Latin, each and everyone diverged, not because it was 'better' but because that's how the people in the area spoke.

Hieroglyphics died because the cultures that used them was no longer in existence. Amusingly, the folk responsible for this were...The ROMANS. The various cultures that used them may not have been wiped from the Earth, but the Romans did a very good job of converting their holdings to their system of doing things.

And you don't even touch on the matter of Asian sinographs.

If your theory actually held water, Latin would have been universally replaced by something more akin to Esperanto not "American" English, which at best is a mis-mash of many influences and other (often seemingly incompatible) language rules.

For the most part, systems are not replaced by 'better systems' they are replaced by 'the winner's systems' which may or may not be better than what they are replacing. But it doesn't matter because the criteria isn't "what's better" it's "how do the rulers do it"

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[PhreakOfTime]

Yes, using the roman empire as a counter argument to a failed system was very amusing. Thank you.

And you don't even touch on the matter of Asian sinographs.

Thats proabably because the topic of discussion did not include Asian sinographs. What would you like to discuss about Asian sinographs, since you brought it up? You seem to be implying that it has been rock solid and based on identical methodologies throught time, without any fundamental changes whatsoever.

Every single topic you touched on is referring to a failed system being replaced by another system. I never discussed the WHY of the failed systems. As you pointed out in the reasoning behind the fracturing behind latin, it evolved into other types of language based on the local variations in the populace that existed, when their previous system failed

In a failed fiat system, the need for trade will not go away. Existing needs will be handled by using the new system that evolves out of the current needs of the populace, just like it has throughout history(per your previously mentioned examples) and just like it will continue to do as long as systems of ideas created by the human mind exist. Will it be a step forward, or a step back? Thats not for me to say, the point is, that it will be a step.

Systems fail. Always. New systems (hopefully) arise to replace the required need that was previously provided by those failed systems. Im not entirely sure why you are taking a posture of argument against that.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Zerth]

The only thing China does to keep capitalists in check is shoot the embarrassing failures.

Move some the points they put into "Oppression of free speech" into "Corporate Bitchslapping" skill.

What country does that look like?

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[CannonballHead]

Yes, but I happen to think capitalism does a better job of accounting for human nature than communism does. A system based ON greed may compensate for it a little better than a system that hopes greed goes away. Which it apparently doesn't, even in the idealistic people that think up these "greed-less" systems and become the rulers of them. :)

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Darkness404]

How doesn't capitalism work? Pure capitalism works just fine and dandy. Its only when the governments screw with it do problems occur. The great depression had more to do with WWI, various government actions and regulations than pure capitalism. Similarly, the recent economic meltdown could have been avoided by reducing regulations in the first place. Also, communism does work, however communism only works when A) You have a self-sufficient country (needing no imports/exports) B) A closed country (little to no international trade/travel) and C) A government who doesn't wildly spend on unnecessary things. Soviet Russia pretty much had A, for a while had B but ended up blowing all their funds on various non-essential projects (More nukes than necessary, space travel, various "proxy" wars, etc) which led to it collapsing.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[lenester]

Corporatism is not capitalism. Nor can any system be which uses a fiat currency. Ironically the strongest bastions of capitalism in the modern world are back-to-basics communities who make extensive use of barter.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Chyeld]

Unless your definition of fail is simply 'changed' then nothing you've just said is accurate. If it is, then you need to stop redefining words.

The Romance Languages were not created as a result of a 'failure' of Latin. They were created because the people who spoke Latin around the world no longer intermingled as much as they did during the height of the Roman empire and thus small changes in accent, wording, and etc. eventually becamed enshirined in each locality as 'the language'. This wasn't EVOLUTION, it wasn't the replacement of a weaker system by a better one, which is the typical definition of evolution when used in this sense.

And if you don't know what an asian sinograph is, then perhaps you shouldn't get all snippity when I bring it up.

The number of Chinese characters contained in the Kangxi dictionary is approximately 47,035...

If your arguement was "Hieroglyphics failed because they are inefficent" then what is your explaination for the continued existance and use of the Chinese writting system? It is just as old and 'inefficent' as hieroglyphs, and yet is still used.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[lgw]

"Pure capitalism" is self-quenching. Until we invent the uncorruptable goverment, economic power becomes political power, so large and successful companies influence the law taking the system away from "pure capitalism" to create barriers to competition.

Corruption affects all human systems. The main advantage of capitalism over communism (and it's a huge one, given the experience of the 20th century) is that it fails more gracefully as it becomes corrupt. But market regulation is just using corrupt system A to police corrupt system B, when B can influence A, so it's not helping much. What we need is a genuinly new idea for a corruption-resistant system given human nature.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[PhreakOfTime]

Fail -

1. disappoint, prove undependable to; abandon, forsake
2. stop operating or functioning

Im glad you were able to read a wiki article on sinographs, but that still does not mean that there have been not many permutations of sinographs over thousands of years, with the older ones having fallen into non-use and being replaced by the current version that is now used and recognized. Im sure some editor put that in a wikipedia entry on sinographs somwhere, since its a fairly well understood fact of historical observations of sinographs through time. Keep digging, you might learn something new about them besides the one line wiki entry you copied.

In other words, they 'failed' or were 'abandoned' for the better way of doing things.

Seriously, what is it that you are arguing? Systems fail, they are replaced by a better version that doesnt 'fail' to account for the variations not taken into account by the previous version. Those systems fail, those systems are replaced.... etc, and so on

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Darkness404]

The only way you make a government that cannot be corrupted is to limit the powers of the government to a small amount. The constitution of the US tried to do that, but yet the document had many flaws and loopholes over the years that let the government become more corrupt.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[CAIMLAS]

How can you expect a "truly socialist" country to try what benefits the -society- as a whole? That has never, ever been the means to an end attempted by socialists; it's NOWHERE within the dogma of the biggest minds in socialist thought. Socialism, in its many guises, has always been about "righting a wrong" by taking from one group of people and giving it to another which did nothing to earn that state-sanctioned gift than to belong to said group.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[krenshala]

Just because something evolved doesn't mean it got better. Evolution is change, so when your language changes, for whatever reason, then it has evolved. Phreak summed it up pretty well for the Romance languages (as did you, from a slightly different perspective, btw).

As for his use of failure, while I don't think many people think of it the way he does, it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable description of what happened. Rome (the empire) failed, and thus the Roman language (latin) changed -- failure leading to change, as local dialects replaced "official" latin.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[youn]

lol, for the fun I make that claim, all systems of humanity will eventually fail, we're doomed. Ask anyone.

Religious people will talk about armageddon type of events
Physicists will talk about our solar system collapsing, the universe "blowing up" eventually
Historians will talk about the rise and fall of civilisations
flskdjflisks will talk about ââlzkjikjrlzkejzrzrz

heck, ask the assyrians, we found a tablet 5000 years ago that said the end of the world is near

We're all doomed! Of course, I think I still have time for a confortable diner before that ;)

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[toriver]

Pure capitalism doesn't work because the capitalists run crying to Mommy State whenever they lose money instead of taking the bankruptcy on the chin and move on. There are no pure capitalists, just groups of lobbyists trying to have laws made that benefit them.

Case in point: When Bush Jr. imposed tariffs on imported steel to cushion the relatively few steel PRODUCING jobs at the cost of the larger steel CONSUMING industries which no longer could get cheap steel.

And don't get me started on food subsidies.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[nedlohs]

France?

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[rohan972]

The central banking system we have in the so called capitalist countries is a feature of communism[1] designed to transform the country to communism. You haven't seen the failure of capitalism, what you are seeing is the success of a communist strategy to destroy capitalism.

[1] same applies to free government schooling and progressive income tax. Reference: "The Communist Manifesto"

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[lgw]

Ah, but that's not a corruption-resistant government, that's merely a small government, and governments only grow over time. From very small roots our government is now seriously considering setting wages and prices in huge industries such as banking and health care.

Re:Capitalism means crisis

[Rue C Koegel]

and since ur comfortable dinner is all that really matters, everything is going to be alright. and all those people u referred to previously, who think everything is 'going to hell' tomorrow are totally wrong.

~starts to sing~

i live understanding that pretty much 'anything' is possible, but it's generally people that 'believe' negative stuff is going to happen that put the most amount of effort into making negative stuff actually occur. whereas those whom merely recognize the possibility but choose to work towards the opposite, have the opposite effect. and those that truly believe everything is going to be alright are generally totally willing to be complacent and let bad things happen anyway.

so the question really isn't whether it's all going to end poorly tomorrow or not, but whether your 'comfortable dinner' is good for u or not, cause u might have a long life of suffering ahead of u if u make bad choices now.

i mean come on. would u rather have everything end tomorrow knowing everything was going swimmingly when it ended, or let everything go to hell even though it might stay that way forever?

Do no evil?

[guruevi]

Apparently they have C&D'd Slashdot as well since it's acting flakey today and yesterday.

This is another reason why we want/need an open design to many of our gadgets. We're relying too much on them but only one big corporation has full control over them. Same goes for Google Docs. If Google decides to pull the plug on any of their systems, you lose.

Re:Do no evil?

[iamhigh]

Isn't that all part of it? You have to select the people that you want to do business with. Sure google could shut down gmail or docs tomorrow, but I don't think they will. Sure my ISP could close up shop, godaddy could blow up, my accountant might get hit by a bus...

You will never mitigate all the risks... but instead of me worrying about DNS, Hosting/Colo, the code, the server(s), the disk space, the db, the backups, and on and on and on... I have outsourced those worries to google in return for a small risk they may unexpectedly shut down some day. If you have taken the proper steps to mitigate that risk (simple offline backups of your docs/email) then you have no issues.

I certainly don't see this as a reason to start the evil mantra again.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.

It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick the lawyers on the hackers.

Re:Do no evil?

[SteveTauber]

Fortunately for the consumer the FCC ruled that Wireless providers must begin to allow any device on their network. We are also now seeing legislation for official Network Neutrality.

Re:Do no evil?

[royler]

Apple has taken action against people jailbraking the phone, and doing so is clearly against the rules. that solidifies their legal hold on their product. if google does not sue someone who is distributing their software, that could be used against them if someone ever does distribute the software illegally.

Re:Do no evil?

[BigRedFed]

WTF are you talking about? Apple sued the modders for a similar reason. story

Re:Do no evil?

[manekineko2]

What's even more funny is that Microsoft, a company hardly synonymous with openness, has long tolerated ROM modders doing the exact same thing on Windows Mobile. Heck, it's far more extreme, as ROM modders on Windows Mobile have been building ROMs off of unreleased versions of WinMo 6.5.1 and including things like Microsoft Office for WinMo in its entirety, and Microsoft hasn't complained.

Meanwhile, the self-annointed Do-No-Evil Google with its open Android system is releasing the lawyers.

When both Apple and Microsoft are more open than you are, even only about a certain aspect of your product, that's not a good sign. It's sad, but Windows Mobile is really the most open mainstream mobile OS out there these days.

Re:Do no evil?

[mcgrew]

Sorry, I'm afraid that's my fault. I linked slashdot from slashdot and slashdotted it.

Sorry again.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

That's an excellent step 1, and it might just be enough. Unfortunately I suspect there might be a step 2 - disallowing the carriers from distributing their own customized (locked) phones. Not only do you have to be able to use an arbitrary device on the network, in any way you see fit, but there also has to be a demand for such devices.

If you get both of those accomplished then there's no reason at all why the handset manufacturers wouldn't compete on features the same way computer manufacturers do. Tethering? Of COURSE we can do that. Want to run bittorrent on your phone? Go for it!

Re:Do no evil?

[indros13]

Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.

It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick [sic] the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick [sic] the lawyers on the hackers.

First time I've ever been able to show the replacement word and the error notation in the same brackets.
-Grammar Nazi

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Apple has made a few general legal statements of position, but I'm not aware of them actually going after any individuals or groups. Do you have a reference for that?

Sure, Google has to assert their ownership, etc, blah, legal reasons, etc. It still sounds like excuses. If they're worried about it why don't they (why didn't they in the first place?) make it easy to distribute just Android with the apps, and then distribute their free-but-only-distributable-by-us apps separately in some easily installed way? Instead their solution is to C&D a major figure in their "open source" project? Hm. It's not much of an open source project if you can't actually contribute and distribute modifications.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Read the article. Apple hit the site for using their trademarks, NOT for posting, distributing or otherwise being involved with jailbreaking. That is NOT a similar reason. Google cease and desisted this guy for distributing software.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, that's a very interesting data point. My theory is that Windows mobile didn't look like it was going to be used by more than a niche group of mostly business people and so it didn't scare the pants off the carriers that it would reveal the incredible amount of overselling they do. The iPhone and Android are a different ballgame because they're marketed to EVERYONE.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Ha, very good. See what Slashdot does to your literacy?

Maybe it's just because "sick" and "lawyers" go so well together.

Re:Do no evil?

[HitoGuy]

I don't think they can legally stop them from modifying their own property. If Apple doesn't like it, they can void a warranty. I am not aware of any law on the books that says one can't modify an iPhone.

Re:Do no evil?

[TikiTDO]

I find this comparison a bit unfair. Now granted, I do not know much about Windows Mobile, but when it comes to the iPhone, you do not actually download a custom OS image every time you jail break. As the name implies, jail breaking keeps the existing OS, but modifies it to allow unsigned applications to be installed.

The Android, by contrast, is inherently more open. If you so chose, you can put on a whole new boot-loader, and install your own build of the OS. Of course, distributing Google apps with an OS that has no relation to Google is wholly different from hacking an existing OS, and keeping the apps on there. Don't get me wrong, I am still annoyed at Google for pulling this stunt, but give credit where it's due.

So, if you claim that Apple and Microsoft are more open than Google, I can only return your claim by saying Microsoft and Apple are not even in the same LEAGUE of openness. In that vein, the two cases are not even remotely comparable.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Well, the EULA says you can't but that hasn't been tested. It's irrelevant though - they can certainly go after anybody who's modifying and then distributing the OS, anyone who exploits a security hole in the OS (a la the TIFF hack) and probably anyone who distributes tools to modify their software.

Google is legally threatening a guy who distributes a non-Google blessed version of the OS.

Re:Do no evil?

[manekineko2]

Windows Mobile hacking is pretty much exactly like this case with Android. You download a custom OS image, and the custom OS images are generally based on leaked versions of the next version WinMo OS. Furthermore, they often include additional things like MS Office Mobile.

Re:Do no evil?

[TikiTDO]

Hmm, maybe I should look into that then.

Re:Do no evil?

[Olipro]

Actually, you appear to be confusing "open platform" with "open phone" The HTC manufactured Android devices aren't open in any way shape or form, all ROM updates are RSA signed, and the only way to "free" the device from these restrictions is by either exploiting something or alternatively, flashing to an old ROM that can be exploited.

Re:Do no evil?

[HitoGuy]

I see. But what if this guy didn't use any of Google's proprietary code in it? The rest is GPL/BSD/MIT licensed, yes? They can't legally threaten them when they create a fully "free" OS?

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Either way. The ideal of course is to have an open network, open device and open software. As you point out, Android is open software, which is useless if you don't have a device to run it on. An open device, even paired with open software, is useless unless you've got an open network that will allow it.

Open source software on PCs had the benefit of both open devices and (where communication was required) an open network right from the beginning.

Re:Do no evil?

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, I believe Android itself is open source licensed (not sure which one, but it doesn't really matter for this discussion). So if Cyanogen was careful to ONLY include open code in his distribution he'd be legally okay. The question is, how easy is it to do that? Can you distribute a modified Android then have the end user add back in the Google apps later? Is it easy enough to be practical for the end user?

The iPhone OS, of course, is entirely closed and may only be distributed by Apple.

That's the bit that seems so ironic. Apple locks down their phone, has a bunch of rules and makes it crystal clear what the rules are. Then they don't directly go after the people who break those rules.

Google makes a big deal about their software being open, then actually goes after an individual directly on a technicality.

Le Shocque!

[Rydia]

Google a giant company, not your BFF.

Film at 11.

Re:Le Shocque!

[Glendale2x]

I know you're joking, but that may come as a surprise to a lot of people.

Re:Le Shocque!

[Killer Orca]

Google a giant company, not your BFF.

That's ok, I already have Facebook as my BFF.

Re:Le Shocque!

[interval1066]

I think google needs to review its own corporate philosophy again. The "Ten things we know to be true" page apparently is just a sort-of loose guide line and not a hard list of rules:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html/
Rules 1, 4 & 6 especially appear to be mere lip-service for us puny consumers to follow, not really applicable to google. I also again reiterate my belief, as mistaken it may be, that in a lot of these cases its possible that the retained corporate lawyer stable is justifying its existence by exercising corporate rights that may actually not be in the best interest of the corp.

Re:Le Shocque!

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Yet people somehow manage to deceive themselves into thinking they'll be better about these things than Apple. At least with an Apple device you get to look trendy while being fucked over.

Re:Le Shocque!

[bennomatic]

Google a giant company, not your BFF.

Film at 11.

So you're saying this is no BFD?

Re:Le Shocque!

[Glendale2x]

#2 made me laugh. What don't they have their hand in these days? I miss Google when it was just a damned good search engine. Now they're trying to be the Microsoft of the internet and being mediocre at a lot of it.

Re:Le Shocque!

[Simon (S2)]

Is it just me, or does that page return a 404 now?

Re:Le Shocque!

[Rary]

Interesting note at the bottom of the page:

Update: We first wrote these "10 things" several years ago. From time to time we revisit this list to see if it still holds true. We hope it does — and you can hold us to that. (September 2009)

If you think they've strayed from it, contact them and "hold them to it".

Re:Le Shocque!

[BobMcD]

It's the link. Omit the last '/'.

Re:Le Shocque!

[BlueBlade]

I know it was for comedic effect, but chock in french is actually shorter, spelled choc ;)

Re:Le Shocque!

[jdgeorge]

# 2 says "It's best to do one thing really, really well," not "it's best to do ONLY one thing." The fact is, Google still is a darn good search engine. The detail of that item explains how they see the focus on search as enabling them to add value in other, non-core, areas.

Working link to Ten things....

Re:Le Shocque!

[interval1066]

Dammit. Why can't I NOT add that last slash??????

Re:Le Shocque!

[Jaysyn]

Is that link broken or did they take that list down?

Re:Le Shocque!

[zapakh]

In Google's defense, they do make their opt-out process as painless as they can.

Re:Le Shocque!

[GooberToo]

Yet people somehow manage to deceive themselves into thinking they'll be better about these things than Apple. At least with an Apple device you get to look trendy while being fucked over.

I know...it's awesome. With an Android phone you can look trendy and NOT get fucked over. Sounds like the way to go.

Re:Le Shocque!

[Avalanche_Joe]

Google a giant company, not your BFF.

That's ok, I already have Facebook as my BFF.

And Michael Moore is my Big Fat Fu--, wait; what does BFF stand for again?

Re:Le Shocque!

[k-macjapan]

Remove the / at the end of the url and it will load.

Re:Le Shocque!

[chrisinspace]

Google was my BFF, but I think it's time for the "it's not me, it's you" talk...

Re:GPL Violation?

[sopssa]

Android itself is, but of course some software written for it can be closed or even, hold your breath, commercial.

Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail apps are closed software.

And before someone jumps on the "but I want the whole thing to be open!!", its more open when developers have choices.

Re:GPL Violation?

[RiotingPacifist]

Did you read the article? It clearly says that its todo with shipping google's closed apps like gmail/gmaps/etc. The OS is free but much of the software is not. Personally it seams pretty dumb to stop people handing out your free apps, but it is definitely within their rights.

Of course it is!

[Iowan41]

Think about Google FirewallofChina, GoogleObama, GoogleCensorship and other fine Google products.

What is confusing?

[fermion]

If Cyanogen is "passing around Google's closed-source apps like Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail", then google has every right, even a responsibility, to stop it. It does not matter that it only runs on google authorized hardware, Cyanogen has not been given the right to distribute the software. What happens if Cyanogen, or some other person, decided to modify the Talk so that all numbers dialed were reported to third party advertisers? Not only would google lose their share of the advertising dollars, but I am sure most would hold google liable. Same thing if maps intentionally lead people to drive off a cliff. Right holders have a obligation to control distribution, and I don't trust those who don't control distribution.

Leaving this issue aside, it does seem that Android is not the open savior that every thought it might be. Given that for a cell phone to work it must have towers, and that the towers are controlled by private enterprise in search of profit, and that large firms tend to sue each other as part of the competitive process, any completely open phone is unlikely to thrive in the marketplace. If google were no a commodity vendor, then I would say that an open phone might work. But given they want tens of millions of customers, there is going to be a compromise of open software and control.

Re:What is confusing?

[ruin20]

If google maps lead people to drive off a cliff I would applaud them for helping eliminate people too stupid to realize that even if the map tells you to drive off a cliff that its still not a good idea. And I don't pity people who run apps from an untrusted source and get burned. I understand where you're coming from but the reason this software is being distributed is because people want the functionality. Don't send a C&D, come up with your own solution which should be that much better being it's authorized and verified with all the cozy protections from coming with the google brand attached.

that's the real problem, cyanogen is becoming a better brand than google, and that's what they're trying to stop.

Re:What is confusing?

[zero0ne]

Exactly.

this C&D is about protecting their end users.

Developers should know better than this.

Re:What is confusing?

[Colonel Korn]

What happens if Cyanogen, or some other person, decided to modify the Talk so that all numbers dialed were reported to third party advertisers?

Wouldn't Google appreciate reports of every number dialed via Talk? Or do they not count as third party?

Re:What is confusing?

[schon]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

google has every right, even a responsibility, to stop it

They may have the right, but they have no responsibility to do it. And just because you have the right to do something, does not mean that doing it is *right*.

What happens if Cyanogen, or some other person, decided to modify the Talk so that all numbers dialed were reported to third party advertisers?

Is he doing that? Your argument is so fucking stupid, I'm wondering how the hell you manage to operate a computer. What if someone were to use a cyanogen modded G1 to beat a cop to death? Is that reason to stop him? What if someone used a non-cyanogen modded G1 to beat a cop to death? That might be reason to stop him too, right?

give your head a shake

Here's a novel concept: If he does do that, then you C&D him. Does that make sense? You know,

And how the hell should he be held responsible if someone else does something?

Right holders have a obligation to control distribution

Bull fucking shit.

If that were true, then how exactly do the Free/Open/Net BSD or FSF folks manage to survive?

Jesus, you (and the people who modded you up) need to pull your head out of your ass - your brain is full of shit.

(Yes, this is flamebait - mod me down, I don't care.)

Re:What is confusing?

[mujadaddy]

Same thing if maps intentionally lead people to drive off a cliff.

Acme Navigation: When you absolutely, positively have to get to the bottom of the cliff before the Roadrunner!

Re:What is confusing?

[TooMuchToDo]

Leaving this issue aside, it does seem that Android is not the open savior that every thought it might be. Given that for a cell phone to work it must have towers, and that the towers are controlled by private enterprise in search of profit, and that large firms tend to sue each other as part of the competitive process, any completely open phone is unlikely to thrive in the marketplace. If google were no a commodity vendor, then I would say that an open phone might work. But given they want tens of millions of customers, there is going to be a compromise of open software and control.

Cell phones don't require towers. My Blackberry from T-Mobile will tunnel calls over WiFi back to T-Mobile, so I can make free calls when out of the country, on cruise ships, wherever, as long as I have free wifi access.

In the near future, I think you'll see most phones move to having a voice app, and they'll be physical layer agnostic (WiFi, HSDPA, whatever). Your cellular provider will just be another data provider; your device just another end point for your voice communications.

Re:What is confusing?

[Nithendil]

Yah legally sure. It is just hilarious that you can "hack" a windows mobile phone (xdadevelopers) with no major outrage from MS (they did raise a stink when ROMS had 3rd party illegal software, but otherwise left it alone). Apple's iphone is so locked down you have to jailbreak it just to install anything that isn't "Apple Approved" but has pretty much left jailbreakers alone. Yet meanwhile Google, who any reasonable person considers more open than MS, goes after Cyanogen.

Re:What is confusing?

[smoker2]

Cell phones don't need towers, they need cruise ships.
Neat.

Re:What is confusing?

[hkmwbz]

Protecting their end users? I don't need Google's protection. If I download a third party mod, it's my risk, and mine alone. Only a tiny minority will have the knowledge to install this thing anyway.

Simplish solution

[IMarvinTPA]

Stop distributing those apps in the ROM!
Add an app to retrieve them from the original (backup) version of the phone.

SafeTex: Copying copyrighted textures from original Quake to custom commercial levels without incident. IE Don't distribute what's already there.

IMarv

Re:Simplish solution

[X86Daddy]

Doom modders had apps to do this with Doom and Doom2 as well... a WAD had to have *every* floor and ceiling tile if it had any, so modders found a way to distribute a small WAD and an app that would copy the licensed stuff at the user's machine prior to running. DEUSF was the one I used a lot.

Likewise, Sharp Zaurus users were in a constant battle to keep / reinstall Opera and the office suite it was delivered with as we upgraded to various alternative ROMs, and some of the recommended ways to do this involved extractor programs that the user could use with the officially published Sharp ROM files.

All that said, it's a lot clumsier for the user than just having the app / content bundled, which was free to the owner of the original program / device, and this is one of those examples of why copyright law, copyright lawyers, and the cultural phenomenon of "intellectual property" are scoffed at openly by many and in need of major overhaul. The company who sold something to the purchaser then insists the purchaser jump through hoops to use what they purchased... hoops that have no technological necessity, nor any benefit in terms of monetary exchange, etc... The technological wizards who have to change their distribution of alternative content or OSes aren't inconvenienced much... just the many paying customers. Who won what in these situations?

say what?

[macbeth66]

"not of the high Googley' caliber"

Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO? It has become just as suspect as any big company. The bigger problem is that people don't even see Google for what it is. It is like MS all over again.

OK. Just my $.02 worth, I guess

Re:say what?

[MozeeToby]

They try, they don't always succeed, sometimes they fail miserably, but they do try. Which is better than 99% of the companies out there.

Re:say what?

[plastick]

Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO? It has become just as suspect as any big company. The bigger problem is that people don't even see Google for what it is. It is like MS all over again.

Damn right, Macbeth. Well said.

Re:say what?

[R2.0]

"Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO?"

No, I don't believe that, because they never said that

Their motto is "Don't be evil." There's a subtle, but I believe important, difference.

Re:say what?

[geekoid]

How about instead of running around screaming they are bad just they are incorporated we judge them on their actions?

Re:say what?

[killthepoor187]

Exactly. They may not be the internet messiah that some people like to think that they are, but they are better than any huge corporation that I can think of. Also, I don't think that MS was ever not an evil company, I thought they started out ripping people right from the get-go with DOS. I could be wrong though.

Either way, show me a company of Google's stature (or even close to it) that does better than they do as far as the whole "do no evil thing." With the enormous temptation it must sometimes be to manipulate markets unethically for Google's own benefit, I think they do a damn good job.

Re:say what?

[R2.0]

"Not since they started buying their competition in Microsoft fashion instead of competing with a better product. e.g. youtube vs video.google.com"

No, Microsoft fashion is to buy it and kill it so that it doesn't compete with MS's inferior product. Google bought YouTube and then effectively killed their OWN product. And they really haven't effed up YouTube. So why are they evil here?

Re:say what?

[TekJannsen]

Agreed. It's important to remember that Google is still a fairly young company, about 11 years old. As time goes on and the company expands, it will continue to look and act more and more like the more traditional, established large corporations out there. The attitude of idealism and experimentation will increasingly have to compete with the concrete necessity of keeping stock holders happy and dealing with the growing number of legal issues that naturally come with expansion.

Re:say what?

[jdgeorge]

"not of the high Googley' caliber"

Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO? It has become just as suspect as any big company. The bigger problem is that people don't even see Google for what it is. It is like MS all over again.

OK. Just my $.02 worth, I guess

Does it violate the "don't be evil" idea if what Google is doing is stopping someone from violating the licensing of their software, or from illegally copying and distributing Google's closed software? If this is what's happening, I think Google hasn't done anything remotely evil in this instance.

I suppose that if I were a Microsoft or Cyanogen executive, I might see things differently, of course. But I'm not.

Re:say what?

[david_thornley]

Before the dark times, before the Empire...wait, where was I?

Microsoft used to produce computer languages for small computers. Their BASIC was almost an industry standard, and they produced a lot of other useful stuff.

While very definitely not a part of the budding hacker culture, it's hard to think of them as actually evil back then.

Re:say what?

[GooberToo]

sueing someone isn't an accident

What a miserable excuse of a zealot response. No one is being sued. A C&D is simply a notification you are perceived to be in violation. The letter is not legally binding. It is true, however, failure to respond to a C&D typically leads to legal action.

Anyone can write a C&D - lawyers need not be present or even involved. To be absolutely clear, a C&D is not a legal filing of any kind, though they can be referenced in a filing.

when are we going to stop winking at people who pull crap like this?

What "crap" are they pulling? So far I seem to only find a misinformed and irrational rant by what appears to be an Apple zealot. Can you be more specific?

it's not a mistake. it was an aggressive act.

You're right, its not likely to have been a mistake but its absolutely not an "aggressive act". C&Ds are always a reactive move which squarely places them as defensive. As it actual details have not been disclosed, its not clear what it is they hope to protect but just the same, it is a defensive move.

Re:say what?

[steelfood]

I don't think anybody thought MS was benevolent. Beneficial, perhaps, to the personal computer market, but not benevolent. Unless you're referring to the pre-DOS days when MS was still doing BASIC interpreters.

Proves the point

[Qubit]

Google is sending a C&D because someone is distributing closed-source Google apps (like GMail, Google Maps, etc...) without a license.

This is why I want a phone that runs only Free Software in the base install. If I know that the base functionality is open and free, that means I can take that base set of software and modify it and distribute it to other people without worry of getting a C&D letter like this one.

Free Software licenses are a great way to CYA. Sure, they do a number of other things for you as well, and they aren't always the best at dealing with software patents, but they CYA a lot more than most proprietary licenses I've seen.

Re:Proves the point

[Rydia]

This is why I'm so excited for the N900. I'm sure the base install has some proprietary stuff, but given the fact that it's linux, and the amount of control you apparently have on the device through nokia's flavor (maemo), it seems to me that you really wouldn't have to worry about this kind of difficulty.

Re:Proves the point

[Sonic McTails]

If you have an Android Development Phone (ADP) or a rooted G1, you can wipe the stock Android install and go down to a base installation which is mostly free (the only closed bits are some drivers required for the camera, phone baseboard, and one or two other things.

If looking at the N810 and the large amount of closed bits it has, then the resulting Android installation will be tons cleaner than the N900.

Re:Proves the point

[Jaysyn]

Then I guess you should get an OpenMoko.  They are relatively cheap these days.

http://www.openmoko.com/product.html

Re:Proves the point

[hvidstue]

Nokia is on the move too :)

What Android really needs

[Tumbleweed]

...is an app that disables the Android kill switch.

FREEDOM!

Re:What Android really needs

[selven]

The kill switch only applies to the android market (not the PERFECTLY LEGIT alternate markets) for apps that violate its terms of service.

Re:What Android really needs

[Tumbleweed]

The kill switch only applies to the android market (not the PERFECTLY LEGIT alternate markets) for apps that violate its terms of service.

What about when those same apps are available from the other markets?

Re:What Android really needs

[dangitman]

...is an app that disables the Android kill switch.

That sounds pretty dangerous to me. When my androids go bezerk, I want to know there is a kill switch available.

FREEDOM!

Sure, for our new robotic overlords, but what about us puny humans?

Heres my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyanogen has been modding for awhile without any trouble from Google. Recently he released a rom that was basically android 1.6 in full, including the new improved version of android market, way before the rest of android users will get it. I think thats what Google is mostly bent out of shape about, hopefully they can reach some sort of peaceful agreement that allows cyanogen to keep modding. His roms are great and make the g1 a powerful device.

Re:GPL Violation?

[rehabdoll]

"its more open when developers have choices."

Not necessarily so for the user.

Re:GPL Violation?

[rjolley]

"its more open when developers have choices."

Not necessarily so for the user.

That doesn't even make sense.

Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[dwight_hubbard]

Bottom line most developers are going to care less about why google is sending lawyers after their community than the fact that they may have to deal with that crap if they develop for Android. Since there are groups producing similar mods to Windows Mobile firmwre, this Cease and Desist has the potential to make the open source mod community around android less vibrant than the community around the Microsoft's closed source OS. Which is a real shame.

If Google doesn't do some rapid damage control they're liable to find their development community moving over to other Open Source phone OSes that don't send lawyers after their development community.

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[rliden]

Developers should care about why Google is doing this. How would you feel if people were distributing your apps or project without a license possibly in violation of that license? It's irresponsible of those developers not to abide by the licensing agreements. If these developers were distributing GPL apps without a license I'm pretty sure the FSF would be breathing down their necks too. It's a matter of respect and professionalism. Those developers are out of line.

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[Mascot]

This has nothing to do with developing for Android. It has to do with illegally distributing somebody else's software for the Android.

Any developer too dim to realize the difference between those two, I don't think I'd want any software from anyways.

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[Andy Dodd]

It's strange. It really is starting to look like every major mobile phone platform based on Linux (OpenMoko is small-fry and still doesn't really have anything but developer toys, and Nokia's Maemo-based devices are almost entirely non-phone.) is at the closed end of the spectrum for modders/developers due to rampant Tivoization. It's a pretty big contrast compared to the Windows Mobile community, where to my knowledge, Microsoft and HTC have never C&Ded xda-developers, and I've heard rumors that there is some unofficial support from inside those companies at this point.

It's really sad when the most open and flexible platform in a particular market segment (mobile phones) is a Microsoft product.

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[Andy Dodd]

OK, a bit more clarification:

http://duttythroy.net/component/content/article/35-romnews/172-microsoft-and-htc-say-ok-to-xda-developers.html

No support, but an statement of no plans to C&D the developers.

(translation: What the developers are doing is good for business and the manufacturers are being smart about it.)

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[jopsen]

Sure, developers should care... And Google probably has the law on its side..
But maybe Google should work this out instead of sending a C&D...

It seams to me as Google is trying to control how their apps are experienced kind of like Apple does it... And that doesn't really encourage community participation...

Anyway, I guess that settles it for me... I'm not buying an Android phone anytime soon... :)

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[dwight_hubbard]

Sure they needed to enforce their copyright, but they didn't have to send their flying monkey lawyer minions after a high profile community developer.

They could have worked with the developer community on a workable compromise that wouldn't interfere with the mod-rom community but would allow users to use their existing licensed software.

The real issue is they didn't try to work with the community for a win-win solution instead they did the evil thing and went for a solution that benefits google to the detriment of their users and developers.

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[rliden]

I think it's a bit of a stretch, if not disingenuous, to say that this illustrates Google imposing draconian control over app development in the same way Apple is accused. They are definitely encouraging community development just not with regards to illegally distributing their own apps. They are discouraging people from distributing their software without a license. I don't see how you could confuse the two. Do you want your software distributed without a licenses? Do you want your clsoed proprietary software code distributed without your permission? Do you want your GPL code modified and used, possibly in a closed app, without a license and without the code being available?

This really has nothing to do with promoting or discouraging development on their platform, although I'm sure those that don't like this will spin it that direction. This is, like I said in my parent post, about professionalism, respect, and proper procedures.

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[rliden]

I think it was the developers responsibility to ensure they were in compliance with licensing. Google sent them legal notice to stop distributing their applications. If the developer(s) want to continue to distribute Google apps then they need to strike a deal with Google.

How is what they did evil? Is anyone directly harmed? How does this benefit Google but not the end user? Can't users easily get Google Apps without this app?

Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea

[GooberToo]

You didn't RTFA or even attempt to understand the summary, did you? Google is NOT sending lawyers after developers. Basically everything in your post is misleading or inaccurate. As a result, your presentation of impending doom is completely baseless to the point of being laughable.

I just wish the moderators will realize your post is troll, overrated, flamebait, or even funny, but it absolutely is not insightful, interesting, or informative, by any measure.

Are they actually modified?

[JSBiff]

Seems to me that the most reasonable compromise, for all involved, is for Google to allow redistribution without modification of their closed source software. Yes, Google has the legal right to make cyanogen stop distributing, but how does that benefit Google? Lots of 'proprietary' software are distributed as .zip or .exe files which the license allows you to make verbatim copies of. This is slightly different, because the software is incorporated as part of a ROM image, but as long as the software inside the ROM image isn't modified, Google should just let him distribute. He's not hurting them in any real way.

Re:Are they actually modified?

[Rhaban]

The problem is, google's closed softwares won't always be distributed with the phones.
A phone provider can choose to distribute an android phone with only their own apps, without the ones from google.
If the same phone is distributed in another country with the apps, and someone make a new rom with the apps, it allows someone to install the app on a phone where it wasn't meant to be installed.

And this is bad for google business with phone profiders.

Re:Are they actually modified?

[nacturation]

Google might be using third party technology which Google is unable to license to others to redistribute. By not enforcing this, they may lose the ability to continue to use it themselves and would have to remove these apps permanently from the market.

Of course, all that's based on assumptions like every other post here.

Re:Are they actually modified?

[smartr]

I can't wait for the next Google crapware bundle to come out. If they're not open sourcing them, I fail to see why they would allow this kind of thing without giving specific exceptions.

Re:Are they actually modified?

[JSBiff]

"If they're not open sourcing them, I fail to see why they would allow this kind of thing without giving specific exceptions."

Well, because, they are, I believe, basically distributed 'by default' with Android, so users expect them to be present. The underlying OS is Open Source. So, now, as an Open Source developer, Cyanogen can mod the operating system (as is his right, per the license for Android), but because he can't distribute the proprietary parts from Google, if any users try to get the "benefits" of Open Source by downloading the modified Android, they lose the Google Apps.

I suppose another way Google could address this satisfactorily would be to allow the end-users to download the Google Apps to their phone again after installing the modified version of Android.

But, an "Open Source" platform, which you can't redistribute core parts of, really fails to be usefully "Open". Yes, I'd think it'd be great if Google went the next step and Open Sourced the apps, but if they're not going to do that, at least let Open Source devs redistribute the unmodified binaries to their end users (or, as I said, let them download them again).

Re:GPL Violation?

[MathFox]

How do you upgrade Android? Do you get a single firmware image from Google containing both the Linux kernel and the Google apps? If it is a single firmware image the GPL says that the full image should be distributable under the GPL. Denying someone the right to remix it would be a GPL violation!

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

its more open when developers have choices.

No, it's not, you dick. The freedom that matters is the user's freedom.

Now now.. While I agree with your statement. You really should address it to the poster, not his sexual organ that may or may not exist.

Re:GPL Violation?

[daskinil]

Umm, Linux is the same way, developers have the freedom to write a closed source app for it. Which is good. Otherwise I wouldn't have matlab on linux. Which is an industry standard for many engineering applications. So this is really not too news worthy, Google has closed source apps and open source apps. Just because a company has some OSS apps, doesn't mean they can't defend the rest of their apps.

not smart

[poetmatt]

there are tons of modder communities within the G1. To do this is not only a: a bad call, and b: bad for publicity neglects the fact that cyanogen can easily leak the info to others (and people can easily continue with cyanogen's work thanks to the apache license).

Workaround : bring patch+script instead of ROM

[testman123]

I suggest to Cyanogen that he releases a "patch" and a script instead of a ROM. Doing so, it would people people resposability to get their own rom and "patch" them using the given script to produce a patched ROM :)

My question on Android is : how can google not release it under GPL as they are using a linux kernel ?

Another point I see, is where are the specifications of Android ? Open ... but without public spec is a bit strange. As google says, no Android is not a Java compatible platform at this time. If you don't have any standard to stick with. How are you sure your current application will work in a comming new version ?

Google realy needs to clarify its position about Android licence, strategy and relation with Java or it will damage the product aura.

Re:Workaround : bring patch+script instead of ROM

[Ren Hoak]

My question on Android is : how can google not release it under GPL as they are using a linux kernel ?

The parts of their system that are linked against other GPL modules -are- GPL. There are other parts (such as Google Maps, etc.) which are not. GPL is not the virus M$ would have you believe it is; it's very easy to create a system that has plenty of GPL along side plenty of other licenses, all coexisting peacefully.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Vexorian]

I think you were meaning to reply the parent post.

its more open when developers have choices.

THAT doesn't make any sense.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Vexorian]

"but I want the whole thing to be open!!", its more open when developers have choices.

"-1 false dichotomy. "

Maemo opportunity??

[dwight_hubbard]

This begs the question, could a functional Maemo rom be made for the G1 as an alternative to Cyanogen??

Re:GPL Violation?

[FlyingBishop]

All the user cares about is data. If I can switch from your mail app to my mail app without losing my data, the system is open. However, if the developer has the choice of whatever mail format it wants, it's unlikely that I can transfer my data without issue. Thus, choice for the developer does not equal choice for the user.

They were doing it the wrong way

[Vexorian]

It is illegal to distribute closed source apps without the license. It doesn't matter if you think what you are doing is not for profit or doing any 'harm'. Google is even required by law to enforce its copyright. The answer is not to complain about google doing evil or about how it is 'harmless' to use this software illegally but to make free software clones of the apps and avoid the legal non-sense altogether. And in most cases, you don't even need to make them... they are already done.

This is something that must be understood. Some "alternative" GNU/Linux distros out there love to include things like Skype and flash without any license. It is illegal doing so, and the reason most of the major distros don't do it. (Some of them don't do it because they don't like proprietary software, but most of them really do it just to avoid the copyright infrigement).

Re:They were doing it the wrong way

[melikamp]

It is illegal to distribute closed source apps without the license.

Not true in general.

Google is even required by law to enforce its copyright.

Simply incorrect. You may be thinking about trademarks, and even then it's not phrased very well.

Some "alternative" GNU/Linux distros out there love to include things like Skype and flash without any license.

Name one.

Re:They were doing it the wrong way

[alexosaki]

It's curious that even though you think "Google is even required by law to enforce its copyright" Microsoft somehow manages to let it go in regards to developers for the WinMo platform. Maybe when you're big enough, you can just ignore the things you're "required by law" to do? Or maybe they realise that when you have a completely rubbish mobile operating system (Android, WinMo) encouraging development for it is more important than getting bent out of shape about what you have the right to do? Either way, regardless of what Google *can* do, what they *have* done is incomprehensibly shortsighted. Perhaps the new telcos signing on to Android (the poor bastards) have forced Google's hand, but it's still intensely bad PR. It's like me going after a kid's lemonade stand because they don't have a license or haven't been inspected by the FDA or whatever. Regardless of how high and mighty I can be about your authority to do so, or how legal it is, it has no potential to make me look like anything other than a spanner and every potential to backfire hideously. Of course, given the geek attention span of "until the next shiny object" I predict the outrage in the Android community to taper off within a week, which is what Google wants and expects. I do think that come time to re-enlist (my contract with TMo is up in January) there will be more than a few people dropping the platform (what with it being complete rubbish and no credible alternative now existing)

Re:GPL Violation?

[Runaway1956]

Once an android is modded, can't the user download gmail and whatever else from Google directly, for installation? I don't own an android, much less a modded one - I'm kinda ignorant here.....

Re:GPL Violation?

[smartr]

It is. It's under the Apache License. Nothing in the Apache License says anything about not working with proprietary software.

A few details

[rickb928]

From TMONews:

"20:03] google just cease and desisted me
[20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead
[20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them
[20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
[20:20] so we'll see what they say
[20:20] maybe we can work something out
[20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"20:03] google just cease and desisted me
[20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead
[20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them
[20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
[20:20] so we'll see what they say
[20:20] maybe we can work something out
[20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"

Probably he will have to drop those apps. This will make loading Cyanogen a little more difficult. Next, will Google prevent him from using those apps to test his distro, or will they make it impossible to run them under his ROMs?

Somehow, this is beginning to look like the end of Google the Nice. The beginning of the open Google the Evil.

Kinda sad, but now that Android is important, the game changes.

Re:A few details

[rawdirt]

you forgot androidandme.com is slashdotte ;)

Re:A few details

[dangitman]

Did he just get stuck in a loop? Kids, this is why you don't use GOTO!

Re:A few details

[chrisinspace]

The problem I see is in the timing. Android isn't all that important right now, but it's just on the cusp of being so. There are close to a dozen new Android phones slated for Q3 and Q4 release and there has been talk of Android on some netbooks (but with the ChromeOS announcement, who knows what's going on there). The reason I ditched my Blackberry and bought an Android phone was because I wanted a device that is based on open standards. This would inevitably create a vibrant developer/modder community and make Android a very powerful platform. Things were definitely trending that way, but for Google to slam the brakes on that just as it was gaining momentum is a bad move. Now I'm locked into a contract so I'll be following this problem closely for a while, but I'm also going to start paying a lot more attention to Moblin. This definitely changes my view of Google, whose services I use extensively (GMail, Google Voice, Google Docs, etc). If their corporate philosophy is going to start evolving into "Microsoft, the Sequel", I'm going to start looking for alternatives.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Tony Hoyle]

Umm.. no.

It's an image. If your interpretation were correct redhat couldn't distribute an ISO of RHEL with non-GPL apps on it, devices with embedded linux would be impossible, etc.

Re:GPL Violation?

[mdm-adph]

For the most part, aye -- I know you can download Maps independently from the Market (have to do this every now and then for an upgrade).

I really don't see the big idea with this -- just unbunble the apps, and let's get back to work. You can use the damn web browser to access gmail on your phone if you need to, anyway.

C&D begets opensource

[anonymousNR]

if Google pisses-off a good developer group, then its possible that they will turn to developing an open source alternative. More good for open source.

Solution

[geirt]

Google, please hire Cyanogen. He is clever!

Open Source my ass!

[Hurricane78]

Android never was open source. It did just look like it would be, to trick some into it, who you will see below, defending more the respect for their decisions than Android. ;)

And now Google shows its real face, regarding this.

Now I'm happy I didn't jump on that train, and chose Symbian (although still pretty crappy) as the main platform.

P.S.: Don't ask a free-thinking developer about the iPhone, if you wanna keep your head. ;)

So close...

[Qubit]

This is why I'm so excited for the N900. I'm sure the base install has some proprietary stuff, but...

Bingo!

I think that the n900 is going to have the same issue as we have with Android phones and the Pam Pre: There's proprietary software in the base install.

If the only proprietary software on the device is games or some non-essential application, then that's not going to be a problem. Someone can just make a replacement image for the device with those non-free apps removed. But if bits of the OS or base applications like SMS, calendaring, email, etc... are under a proprietary license, that might be a big block to using the phone with only Free Software.

I'm hopeful about the n900, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:So close...

[benthurston27]

from what I've read it is some of the widgets like screen brightness or battery life etc that are proprietary. It might be difficult to remove the proprietary parts.

So don't distribute those apps...

[argent]

This isn't any different from the Second Life client where third party packagers have to leave out certain closed-source components that Linden Lab uses. When you use them, you take the SL client downloaded from Linden Lab, and add the updated open source components. Most open source clients include an installer now that copies the closed source components from your original SL directory into the new application.

Re:GPL Violation?

[bennomatic]

I think you were meaning to reply the parent post.

its more open when developers have choices.

THAT doesn't make any sense.

Now even I'm confused!

Openness

[Estragib]

its more open when developers have choices.

All the user cares about is data.

This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.

It might be a decision to abandon certain functionality (not supporting a certain file format any longer, or dropping a lesser used feature to concentrate on a more popular one), it might be a matter of trust (changes in license or privacy agreement; a BitTorrent client getting sold to a company connected to copyright holders or an email client to a company known for data mining), it might be a matter of price (formerly free applications going commercial), it might just be the ever-so-popular dumbing down of the user interface.

My problem is that I can't just stop updating it now, because I depend on bug fixes. In the worst case I need security fixes to keep my system safe at all.

With FOSS-software I would fork from the version that has the functionality I need, trust or can use efficiently, and just keep up with any holes as they appear. I can't do any of that with closed software, effectively barring me from using the app any longer and wasting the time I invested in the application in the first place.

A prominent example of this is uTorrent. When they were sold, a lot of people, me included, would have liked to keep current functionality (it was fairly sufficient). To keep using the old version, though, is to keep any security holes that were discovered in the meantime wide open. I'm sure other people remember a lot of other examples.

I even wondered about this when I started using uTorrent but decided, nah, that guy seems ok, I think I can risk it. I don't think I will make that mistake again. I like to be in control of my applications, not the other way around.

Re:Openness

[FlyingBishop]

In the short term, sure. But in the long term, you're fine, because BitTorrent was originally engineered as a closed-source application with an open protocol. There are a variety of clients, and you only have interface issues. Yes, I prefer open source, but I think uTorrent is a good example of precisely why it's data communication that's important and not the software doing it.

That said, have you found a good uTorrent replacement? I'm still looking. At the moment I just use transmission, which is suboptimal.

Re:Openness

[jeremyp]

This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.

For the vast majority of users i.e. those who can't write code, open source software has exactly the same problems.

With FOSS-software I would fork from the version that has the functionality I need, trust or can use efficiently, and just keep up with any holes as they appear.

You can, yes. But can a salesman? A secretary? My aged mother? No.

Re:Openness

[Estragib]

My requirements were prioritizing, selective downloading, FOSS, a small footprint, and running as service/daemon, and I tried most of the clients on the Wikipedia list that fit these criteria. I liked Deluge most, though I still had a a few problems.

In the end, the problem solved itself when I did the switch from Windows to Linux as my main OS. I use rTorrent, daemonized in screen now and have never looked back. It's very small and has console and (optional) web interfaces.

Oh, and please don't tell anyone I said "FOSS-software".

Re:GPL Violation?

[bennomatic]

its more open when developers have choices.

No, it's not, you dick. The freedom that matters is the user's freedom.

Developers are people to! And so are corporations! Won't someone PLEASE think of the corporations?

Of course, the user has the ultimate freedom, which is to use something other than the product which is not open enough to suit their needs.

Re:Cyanogenmod wikipedia article similarly cut dow

[RPoet]

There was no "clear consensus"; most of the people commenting were new or low-volume users who could not argue for keeping the article ("it's good information" is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article to exist). The AfDs were clearly off-site campaigns. I've been around Wikipedia AfDs enough to see that this is no conspiracy.

If you can't establish notability, it's not notable, as easy as that. Saying that other stuff exists is specifically not an argument against deletion.

Re:GPL Violation?

[bennomatic]

Hey, if you put 1000 monkeys in front of a thousand computers for 1000 years, who's to say you wouldn't have gotten Matlab anyway?

Oh, wait. Do monkeys live for 1000 years?

Re:GPL Violation?

[aristotle-dude]

I thought Android was supposed to be Free Software / Open Source Software?

The original copyright holder is not bound by the GPL as long as they are either the only contributor, have all copyrights assigned before a change is accepted or has agreement from all holders of copyright. The GPL only applies to other people who are not the original authors. But this is not about open source code but rather coded source google apps distributed with android.

"Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes"

[garyebickford]

Hmm. The earlier poster who mentioned whether this was a 'Googley' reaction reminded me suddenly. One of the very first million-selling songs (sheet music) was a song written by Billy Rose in the 1920's, called "Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googly eyes" , inspired by the Barney Google comic strip. (I thought it was the other way round, but never mind.)

This raises an interesting question - is Google's name in violation of the trademark of the Barney Google / Snuffy Smith comic strip, or the song?

According to the afore-mentioned Wikipedia article, there is arguably an indirect connection (through the mathematical googol) between the two Googles - if nothing else it's an interesting case of a word's spelling tending to gravitate toward a common predictable form - or something.

Hmmm.

Re:"Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes"

[ubernostrum]

This raises an interesting question - is Google's name in violation of the trademark of the Barney Google / Snuffy Smith comic strip, or the song?

It's actually not interesting, and no. Trademarks apply to a specific field of endeavor, which means that two companies, products or services in unrelated industries can (and often do) have the same name and both can hold trademarks on it (for example, there's a computer manufacturer named "Dell", and also a book/magazine publisher named "Dell").

Re:"Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes"

[BobMcD]

On what grounds would this not be interesting to someone who hadn't considered that angle of the discussion?

Re:"Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes"

[geekoid]

Did Barney Google have a search engine?

Learn the lesson now

[al0ha]

All companies started by techs with a visionary idea eventually turn into just another money grubbing entity run solely for the benefit of Goldman Sachs.

This is a serious problem

[hidden]

At least on the Rogers Dream (Canadian version of the G1) Cyanogen and similar are the ONLY way to run the phone well..

With the stock firmware timestamps are broken (as in text messages showing up in the wrong time zone, making the sorting of a conversation all wrong) and Performance is miserable.
By contrast Cyanogenmod more than solves these problems, transforming it from a badly flawed phone that makes Android look really BAD, to an excellent that makes android look great.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that, given what a poor job rogers has done resolving serious bugs like the timestamp one, I would never buy another android phone from Rogers, if I were going to be stuck using the stock firmware. However, as long as the modder community remains in play, I am a happy user who would be happy to buy a new device that came out.

I guess my point is, if google starts to shutdown the modders, they really are actually pushing customers (well, at least one) away.

Cyanogen builds without the Google Apps

[azdio]

I welcome versions of Cyanogen without the google applications.

Re:Cyanogen builds without the Google Apps

[idontgno]

Gosh, get it right.

"I, for one, welcome our new Cyanogen without the Google applications overlords."

im very curious what it means for...

[pjr.cc]

The tytn2 and the HTC Hero android hacks.

I was VERY VERY keen to get a Hero (still am), but its complicated by the fact that the Hero available (UK) has one band missing that's used in Australia (though not by my mobile provider). Work is currently renegotiating its contracts for phones and so until they do (and either stay with the same provider or switch to the provider that uses the band) I really dont know what to do. Im keen as mustard to get one.

However, in the interum i've found solace in the fact that people have hacked android to run on the tytn2 and lately, hacked the Hero firmware to work on it. This is great for me cause it gives me a feel of whether I want the phone or not, and I still do.

Curious that Google would chase someone that way really, its not the typical google way and perhaps its the beginning of google turning evil? or maybe they're being forced to do it from one of their licensee's? Will be interesting to see how this turns out.

But, there seems to be one simple way around it. Rather then distributing a ROM, distribute a build tool. Something that sucks a rom off the owners phone, does the cynogen mods and creates a new rom for the user to upload... Would this ont solve the problem?

Google is evil

[Snaller]

"Case closed."

Indeed. They are evil.

Re:GPL Violation?

[lgw]

Oh, wait. Do monkeys live for 1000 years?

Hey, you could at least bother to read the RFC before asking such a pointless question! RFC 2795 handles such things transparently. Under the hood you'd see:

            BoBoSIM> SEND FOOD
            SanDiego> ACCEPT
            BoBoSIM> SEND MEDICINE
            SanDiego> DELAY
            BoBoSIM> SEND VETERINARIAN
            SanDiego> REFUSE
            BoBoSIM> SEND VETERINARIAN
            SanDiego> REFUSE
            BoBoSIM> NOTIFY NORESPONSE
            SanDiego> ACCEPT
            BoBoSIM> NOTIFY DEAD
            SanDiego> ACCEPT
            BoBoSIM> REPLACE MONKEY
            SanDiego> ACCEPT

But the ZOO abstracts all that so you don't have to care.

It's because of the Market app

[Orange Crush]

His latest ROM has the new market app which isn't only closed-source, but it's unreleased closed source. Google doesn't want their stuff going into the wild until they say so.

Re:It's because of the Market app

[bill_mcgonigle]

way to poke the bull in the eyes there - so he's not just violating license, he's probably causing back-end problems too. That was dumb.

Re:It's because of the Market app

[stephanruby]

way to poke the bull in the eyes there - so he's not just violating license, he's probably causing back-end problems too. That was dumb.

If he's causing back-end problem, you don't have a lawyer send him a C&D, you have an engineer give him a call. Google has all the phone numbers of the developers who develop on their platform. Many times, a friendly phone call will work a thousand times better than sending a threatening letter.

Re:It's because of the Market app

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't know what Google is like, but there are some tech companies where the lawyers are itchin' to sue everybody in sight and they get held back by more reasoned heads until some line is crossed. IP problems vs. operational problems could be such a line - given how engineer-heavy Google is, I can see a culture that would have decided that trust among engineers was lost with the decision to distribute a private beta of a client/server app. Since Google isn't want to sue everybody in sight, my speculation is that something like this was going on. Or maybe this will define a bright line in their descent into Evil - we'll see.

Re:Cyanogenmod wikipedia article similarly cut dow

[RPoet]

Of course not. You can challenge the policy all you want, and if you don't succeed, you can take the whole damn Wikipedia database and start a competitor.

I, for one, agree with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that requires a certain amount of notability and a certain amount of verifiability.

could he just take those apps out?

[Nyder]

I have a G1, and I don't run his rom.

But it seems to me that he should be able to take those out, and then make a program that could add them however.

I've been considering rooting my phone, mainly since I heard that they weren't updating my phone with new android releases.
Now if googles getting all butthurt over this stuff, then maybe I should.

I'd remove those apps from the release of his rom, and then see what they say. Seems if they wanted to talk they would of gotten a hold of him first though, unless doing polite business went out last thursday.

Re:GPL Violation?

[doom]

or even, hold your breath, commercial.

You mean, "proprietary".

Same issue copyrighted software on linux distros

[BrookHarty]

This is the same issue as an linux distro has, trying to include copyrighted software in the installation.

Nothing new, except this is on the phone, and the "Do No Evil" google is just pissing off customers who already paid for the google apps.

I have a G1, it sucks out of the box, too many issues. The community gets together fixes them, wraps the fixes and software back up for the phone.
Now google steps in screws over the community. They should of stepped in and said, and at least offered this guy contract to distribute the applications, since he is fixing BUGS.

So now, the fallout, fork android. Form an "open-android" market, and replace all of googles applications. This is the perfect time for microsoft to step in and allow its IM clients, Map Clients, and Video clients to be freely used. I support this, google can no longer be trusted, they need to be removed from their little plot to control everything.

Software freedom would fix this.

[jbn-o]

If that's the case, it is all the more reason why we need free software to do these jobs.

Base level of functionality

[Qubit]

I guess you should get an OpenMoko. They are relatively cheap these days.

Well to answer the second part, the cheapest price for the OpenMoko Freerunner is currently $250 in the US. That's cheaper than $400 for the HTC Dream. The Palm Pre is only $100 with a 2-year contract, but no carrier-free GSM phone prices are available yet. So the Freerunner is a bit cheaper, but with much less hardware.

As for the phone itself, last I heard the development was continuing slowly and people were having issues with phone calls and getting the phone to hold a charge longer than a day. I mean, maybe, maybe I could be persuaded to use a phone without SMS, but if the battery has no life, and the thing isn't even meeting basic phone call levels, that's just too big a hurdle.

I'm really excited about the Palm Pre Challenge that's currently going on. It's a directed, focused push to get working phone calls with FSO on the Pre within a month:

What: Working voice call with FSO on the Palm Pre within one month.
  When: As soon as the Palm Pre GSM is available in Germany. (2009-10-13)
  Who: Daniel, Jan, Mickey, Simon and Stefan. Who else?

  2009-09-17 First draft for Challenge.
  2009-09-24 Palm an O2 announced the 2009-10-13 as Palm Pre launch date in germany. That means our challenge has a start date now.
  2009-09-25 Kick off some OE work for kernel and rootfs images.

This seems like a good, focused, reasonable goal that can be attained. I wish them luck!

mirror/torrent of Cyanogen, grab 'em while you can

[sethstorm]

mininova/TPB do have 4.0.1, 4.0.4, and 4.1.11.1 as torrents if you still want to grab them for a mirror.

Good formula to close C&D cases

[Ilgaz]

I hope you will post a similar post when Apple or Microsoft does something like that and close the case.

Open source isn't really free software as speech

[Ilgaz]

This is really interesting one since every time the term "open source" confuses people like that, RMS'es point of open source doesn't have to be "free software" (as in speech) is justified.

I am not hoping you will understand my post as you attack another poster over a gigantic information/advertising monopoly. Heard the IBM's 1930s sale to Germans? Would it make any difference if the "application" and "device" was completely open source, documented? Would it change the way it was abused?

Still having problems? Apple iPhone/iPod, has some "license" like a freaking freedom fighter, almost open source fanatic. Does it make any difference for Developers and Users? Can they do whatever they want?

BTW, what is your problem with Symbian? Everyone doesn't like Google policies doesn't have to be a Symbian developer or user. To justify, Symbian foundation release will be so huge and game changing that everyone ignoring Symbian, especially after Qt acquisition are really making a poor decision right now.

Worse than MS

[Ilgaz]

People doesn't have monetary ties with MS, at least not the majority of them. Each person having "google ads" in his/her blog is a business partner of Google and you can't expect him/her to be objective.

In every Google story, sites become something like MS dealer conference, all 1000s of them managed to get an account from Slashdot and started posting.

I am not even mentioning "do no evil" and brain dead actually believing as if such thing would happen. You know, all prophets died very rich as they did no evil :)

Re:GPL Violation?

[chrisinspace]

You can get some apps, but not others. If there is no way to get all of the apps, you are essentially crippling the device. The biggest problem I would see is that the phone's address book (all of your contact information) is synced from GMail contacts. If this is disabled, you would lose a lot of functionality.