Slashdot Mirror
Android Modder Tries To Outmaneuver Google
itwbennett writes "Google recently sent a cease-and-desist letter to Steve Kondik, the creator of Cyanogen, a popular souped-up version of Android, asking him to stop distributing applications such as Gmail with his modified software. 'We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals,' wrote Dan Morrill on the Android developer blog. 'Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository.' Now, Kondik thinks he's found a workaround. He plans to release a 'bare bones' version of Cyanogen without the applications, leaving it to modders to make a backup copy of the Google applications that shipped with their phone for later reinstallation before hacking away at the Android software. 'The idea is that you'll be able to Google-ify your CyanogenMod installation with the applications and files that shipped on your device already,' Kondik wrote."
This actually seems like a more-or-less legitimate point by Google. I'll probably get flamed for this, but it seems like people may have overreacted a little bit.
Google Cache
The current state..
The last few days have been difficult. What has become clear now is that the Android Open Source Project is a framework. It's licensed in such a way so that anyone can take it, modify it to their needs, and redistribute it as they please. Android belongs to everyone. This also means that big companies likes Google, HTC, Motorola, and whomever else can add their own pieces to it and share these pieces under whatever license they choose.
I've made lots of changes myself to the AOSP code, and added in code from lots of others. Building a better Droid, right?
The issue that's raised is the redistribution of Google's proprietary applications like Maps, GTalk, Market, and YouTube. These are not part of the open source project and are only part of "Google Experience" devices. They are Google's intellectual property and I intend to respect that. I will no longer be distributing these applications as part of CyanogenMod. But it's OK. None of the go-fast stuff that I do involves any of this stuff anyway. We need these applications though, because we all rely so heavily on their functionality. I'd love for Google to hand over the keys to the kingdom and let us all have it for free, but that's not going to happen. And who can blame them?
There are lots of things we can do as end-users and modders, though, without violating anyones rights. Most importantly, we are entitled to back up our software. Since I don't work with any of these closed source applications directly, what I intend to do is simply ship the next version of CyanogenMod as a "bare bones" ROM. You'll be able to make calls, MMS, take photos, etc. In order to get our beloved Google sync and applications back, you'll need to make a backup first. I'm working on an application that will do this for you.
The idea is that you'll be able to Google-ify your CyanogenMod installation, with the applications and files that shipped on YOUR device already. Or, you can just use the basic ROM if you want. It will be perfectly functional if you don't use the Google parts. I will include an alternative app store (SlideMe, or AndAppStore, not decided yet) with the basic ROM so that you can get your applications in case you don't have a Google Experience device.
I'll have more updates soon as I get all the code hammered out.
Thanks for all the support thru all of this.
This entry was posted on September 27, 2009, 9:41 am and is filed under Home.
They will fubar this if it has any sort of step beyond download + install.
This is not a work around. He will comply with Google's wishes and most everyone will be more or less happy. Google keeps their proprietary apps available for license and he gets to have his distro without having to pay for a distribution license.
A compromise that is win-win all around.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I have a rooted G1 and use Cyanogenmod: it provides several enhancements, such as root, which allows for Wifi/bluetooth based tethering. It is also somewhat more responsive and quicker than the official firmware. It does have less battery life, and can be less stable then the official version however. While it is true that Android is open source, Android without many of the base apps such as Gmail/Google maps is not particularly useful. Still though, this won't prevent me, and other users from using this mod. And since I paid for the phone, and by extension, the applications that came with the phone, I should be able to transfer them to a new operating system on the same phone.
It isn't outmaneuvering, I'm sure this is what Google had in mind. No licenses being broken, and a strong modder community.
I don't think that's actually true.
I think this solves their complaint, this means that the code is being left with the end user, and is not being distributed by them.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
I love my Android G1 (with Cyanogen's Mod). But Google is not Android, nor vice versa. Google created Android, and then spun it off to the Open Handset Alliance (OHA).
This means that Google is now an application developer for Android, just like any other application developer. Android supports competitive markets (and there are at least 3 Android markets out there). Gmail isn't the only email interface, Google Maps is not the only maps interface.
I love my Android phone, but I don't love the Google apps -- they're too intrusive. I'd love a Google-less G1, and I'm down for trying the new mod without the Google apps if it will work fine.
Again, Google is not Android. Android is Android, maintained by the Open Handset Alliance. Cyanogen might be wiser to join the OHA, actually, and license the apps if he wants them.
Works for me. He also said he's working on an app that'll do the backup for people who can apparently handle rooting and uploading custom ROMs to their phone but can't handle a few adb commands.
Honestly, I don't LIKE all the googlifying of the phone. The default ROM on a Mytouch 3G (how pervy is that name, btw?) doesn't even let you skip the google signup.
I'll definitely put SOME Google apps back on my phone (Google Maps, Listen, etc) but I'm pretty happy to not be REQUIRED to.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Basically Google's operating system is open source like Apple's operating system is open source. You can fiddle with the geeky low level core stuff, but the things that are actually useful and make it valuable are proprietary and can't be messed with without being sued.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
The WINE and ReactOS projects don't provide MS Office, IE or Media Player. FPGB (http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/09/29/0516251/Gameboy-Color-Boot-ROM-Dumped-After-10-Years) doesn't provide GameBoy cartridges. MAME makes you responsible for finding your own ROMs. Et cetera, etc.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Why not get the nokia n810 then? It's much less restrictive, it's been on the market for quite some time now and you can get one quite cheap.
Actually, Wine does provide "IE" (in the form of a minimally functioning clone) - but your point is well taken.
This is essentially how it works on any platform you're hacking. You can release all the open-source bits, modifications, and instructions you want (modified roms, killhdinitrd, dsmos), but the minute you combine that with proprietary software (Google Apps, Tivo software, Mac OS X DVD's), you're in hot water. So the usual result is anyone who wants to remain legitimate distributes only the modifications, and allows users to bring in the proprietary bits themselves. It's worked well, and keeps everything legally clean. Perhaps a little more work for the end user, but hacking has never been point-and-click.
Tivo hacking, Mac OS X hacking, now GooglePhone hacking. No different.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
If you download the sdk they have an emulator.
Heck - Windows doesn't provide MS Office.
In the Slashdot world, following the laws lobbied by the corporations that are ultimately extremely unpopular and seem to be attacking the rights of citizens is a "hack".
And yet they can't figure out why companies view FOSS as a vehicle for technological advancement that circumvents their control and threatens their outdated business models.
There, fixed that for ya, at least from my point of view. I consider myself a law abiding citizen but I'm also realizing that many laws these days are not benefiting or protecting the citizens at all and are very unpopular. When you have such laws being passed that seem contrary to public desires, you start to wonder what is going on and who your government is really working for.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of startups and even some actors and such that have embraced newer business models that don't necessarily depend on charging for content. I think the companies are terrified of this concept because this generally requires the content to actually be good to get the public to consume it. If the public isn't consuming it, you don't get advertisers and such. Most (not all) products and services out there have required the public to pay first. This was fine back in the day when good customer relations was key to keeping up sales. However, we've moved into an era where people are generally apathetic when they receive lackluster products and services and just shrug their shoulders.. the company doesn't care though because it still has their money. Even worse, we have situations where people are actually turning away from the product/services and the companies just find another way of getting the money, either through government intervention or litigation against their one time customers.
Just my two cents.
My HTC Touch Pro2 ships with Windows Mobile, Office Mobile, IE Mobile, and Windows Media Player. I went to the XDA Developers forum and downloaded a cooked ROM containing Windows Mobile, Office Mobile, IE Mobile, and Windows Media Player. An Android ROM customizer gets a cease-and-decist from Google. To my knowledge, no Windows Mobile ROM customizer has gotten a C&D from Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fanboi, but I *am* confused as to why Google would raise a stink over their product being distributed in such a way that it will ONLY be useful on devices that already came with the software. It's not like he lifted it from an Android handset and is selling it in the App Store or even ported it to the iPhone and is giving it away for free on Cydia or something like that. I guess I just don't understand how being distributed on cooked ROMs that only work on handsets that originally came with the code and will only be used by a subset of Android owners is going to harm Google.
This isn't an "outmaneuver", it's precisely the right thing to do. It's no different from other open source projects with closed source components, like emulators that require a ROM image to function, or the Second Life client that requires proprietary Vivox components for voice.
WINE and ReactOS aren't redistributions of Windows.
This is more like if MS told people making Windows XP slimming programs to not distribute Calculator with their mods because MS owns Calculator.
Of course, you can't redistribute Windows like that, where you can Android.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
There's the Zii Egg...
In the case of any "open source" based device what is going to happen is the manufacturers learn quickly that some portion of the user community will do completely unexpected things with the device and the software on it. Often, this will violate various agreements, including potentially trade agreements governing the use of the device in places. This is especially true with cell phones - wouldn't you like to have a cell phone that **ALWAYS** gets a channel rather than competing with other phones in your area? Nevermind that the tower owner might not like this hack, there is little that can be done to stop it, especially with a more "open" phone.
The other thing that is expected - and is clearly happening - is people get confused about licensing and what is and what is not free to redistribute. The end result is again, there is no control over content. In this case the developer/distributor decided to comply with Google's request. They could have just as easily said bugger off, and if they were in a non-compliant country there would be little Google could do about it. And that is assuming they could find the person at all.
Sure, it looks obvious to manufacturers that an "open" device might be cheaper to start with. But there are other costs that are just beginning to become apparent. Most of these are mitigated by locking down the device so it might have "open" roots but is unmodifyable. As in the case of things like Tivo, Archos, Kindle, etc. the manufacturers have done quite a bit to ensure this sort of problem doesn't come up. Unfortunately, what we are going to see with "popular" devices is they will get pried open, exposed, hacked, and proprietary content redistributed and modified.
I'm just waiting for the first person that figures out a way to use the cell service with a Kindle for some other purpose. Something that costs Sprint enough that they want to cancel their agreement with Amazon. Something that doesn't involve destroying the Kindle to rip the cell modem out.
He just said he didn't need a phone.
There is a war going on for your mind.
There are a few technical pieces missing from the comments here, and this story is still definitely developing. From Cyanogen's twitter feed today: "This is about proprietary device drivers and not Google at this point. These drivers are not redistributable."
This is a nice reminder that there's likely no building a usable phone room without infringing on some agreements. I do not expect this to change in the near future; what this means is that a sort of 'merge' or 'overwrite' or patch system will need to be put in place for people modding their phones.
This will take a little time to build would be my guess, but isn't insurmountable; I think the complexity of building such a thing should fit inside of the typical hacker attention span that's been piqued right now.
IWell there's the android netbook, the Acer Aspire One D250m, so I can't imagine an android-does-ipod-touch will be far behind.
He just said he didn't need a phone.
The N810 isn't a phone. The upcoming N900 is, however.
"Complying with demands" is not "outmaneuvering".
It took me some time to formulate an opinion on this, and so what I say is not a knee-jerk reaction. I personally kept hoping that google were pushed into this because of either the alliance they are in or because of something less obvious (like pushing around some proprietary rubbish from htc) - but so far it appears not to be the case. My position will flip utterly though if that does occur.
First of all, let me compare google android to windows mobile - go to xda-developers.com and have a look at all the roms floating around (all require licensing and of course none of them do). Yet MS dont touch them... Why not? cause its good for MS. Not only does it not impact their business model it helps them. People get to play with the new roms and they already had a license for Windows mobile anyways. No harm done. Ultimately it gives windows mobile a thriving hacker community which is only helping MS.
Apple have done virtually nothing to stop hackintosh's (generic pc's running macos) or jailbreaking iphones. More or less for the same reason. Yet Apple did go after someone trying to sell hardware with MacOS - and thats the fine line that google should not of crossed. Its a line apple and MS (surprisingly) realise is ultimately in their best interests.
When google just let fly with a bunch of urine over a thriving hacking community. Are google within their rights? absolutely. But they achieve nothing. The people who were getting the firmware already had the market place (thanks to the fact their phones ran LICENSED android in the first place). Take me for an example of where it could be contrived to "hurt" them.. I have a tytn2 (which i've stuck with simply because of the xda-dev's site and the interesting things done with it), but I hate windows mobile (For the most part). So I got the android (and later hero) ports that actually work on my phone. Ultimately I got hold of a copy of marketplace on my mobile and google didn't get their licensing margins... OH NOES!!!! I CAN SPEND MONEY NOW IN THE GOOGLE MARKET PLACE AND THEY GET A CUT - IM A CRIMINAL!!!
Or course, the ports to the tytn2 aren't entirely all that useable, but they did give me a really good idea that I wanted a Hero.
But now I dont. Why? simply because of the fact google did this and the way they did it. They did not have to go in with a c&d, they could have easily gotten a hold of their hacking community (such as that which is cyanogen) with an open letter/blog post saying "please stop doing this - and these are the reasons why".
Google has everything to gain from something like cyanogen cause it makes their software more useable - but instead they took a view no other maker has. Much to their detriment. I was so keen to get my hands on an android phone and now the interest has completely left me. Sure, im only one person, but to see someone like google take an axe to their own hacking community for no good or useful reason is very disappointing. At first I thought they were pushed into this via the open handset alliance, but I've been told by reliable sources this is not the case and it was solely instigate by google. Ultimately, the only real mobiles worth running android on are actually android phones with the licensed software anyway.
But there are exceptions... There are places where google didnt send the android close apps, but you can bet it was for reasons they weren't happy with. After all, marketplace is something google gets a cut on and they'd want that on every mobile they can get it into. I cant say I really care much if he does find a way around it, truth is that he shouldn't have to.
And thats the 2 main points
1) Google had nothing to lose and everything to gain by following MS's example of turning a blind eye
2) They didnt have to do it this way.
Lately, an appropriate quote from the "Yes, Minister" series on the bbc:
Sir Humphrey: May I say just one more thing?
Jim: Only if it's in plain English.
Sir Humphrey: Very well Minister. If you are going to do this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way.
That uses the gecko layout engine... I don't think that counts.
A little helper program so you could easily push buttons to back up and restore the google apps. Make it easy.
I have a new (to me) G1 and I gotta say some things are easy and a joy (sadly, twitter, althouhg good news, ssh) while other things are so difficult and painful (logging into starbucks wifi through the web) I can see myself going postal and throwing the phone across the room. Especially if I hear the words "meditation", organic" or "yoga" one more time.
Need Mercedes parts ?
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/google-cracks-down-on-android-developer/
"The Android engineers at Google are now making available previously unreleased components â" makefiles and configuration files â" that will give independent developers the ability to create Android releases in the same manner that Google does, but without using Googleâ(TM)s proprietary apps. These engineers are working with volunteers from the community and have already begun working on alternatives to the proprietary Google applications."
It doesn't sound as contentious as the OP but it definitely seems like Google is taking the right tact on this to me.
Ok, you got me. I just looked at the picture & saw that it looked like every other side-flipper smartphone out there & didn't actually read the wiki.
There is a war going on for your mind.
This guy is basically saying he will work around the cease and desist but all he is doing is complying and trying to tell the world how big of a rule breaker he is "getting away with it by just doing X" with X being what he was asked to do to begin with...
The whole tone of your post demonstrates that you have drunk the cool aid of the content industry,
/megabyte indeed.
of which traditional mobile operators are part,
the point is that I have a mobile to make calls, and send/receive SMS and not to me monetized, GBP 6
Kindle would do better to make their device actually work, see the comments of Princeton students, HINT it sucks!
Google has a point; they never claimed those Google Apps are open source.
Maybe the work that he does to stay in compliance will provide a sort of "road map" for others in the future who wish to mod/hack so that they can do so without ending up being threatened legally, yet will still be able to provide their work to the community in a usable form that will allow the the mods to be easily installed without the user losing functionality they want.
I have to agree with everyone else who has stated that "outmaneuvering" is sensationalistic and not really accurate.
I don't think that's a phone.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of startups and even some actors and such that have embraced newer business models that don't necessarily depend on charging for content. I think the companies are terrified of this concept because this generally requires the content to actually be good to get the public to consume it. If the public isn't consuming it, you don't get advertisers and such. Most (not all) products and services out there have required the public to pay first. This was fine back in the day when good customer relations was key to keeping up sales.
I'm not sure I follow your version of history. If you're talking about the history of 'content' then some of the oldest existing business models do not depend on charging for content. Radio stole recorded performances and gave the content away for free. Eventually they had to pay composers (but not performers), and that's still the business model used today. They don't charge for content, and the content isn't famous (on slashdot anyway) for being good. But people still consume it, so they get advertisers. Broadcast TV doesn't charge for content, yet the same business model is in play here too. So 'back in the day when ....' does not refer to a time when providers charged for content universally.
Yes it's true that some business models 'back in the day' charged for content, just as some do today. And yes today we have some companies trying government intervention and/or litigation as a way to get the money, just as we did 'back in the day'.
You seem like someone who would enjoy (and benefit from) reading Lawrence Lessigs' book Free Culture (see http://www.free-culture.cc/toc/) which details some of the history of 'mere copyists' and content 'pirates' who are today's litigants. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I don't really think you have a strong grip on the history of content providers. And since I'd like you to succeed in convincing the people who hear you, I think you'd be better off with more historical fact, rather than historical romanticizing.
Just my .02 cents (worth even less these days since George Vaccaro got done with Verizon)
That's the point of the grandparent's post. Did you read it?