Slashdot Mirror
RMS: 'Is Android Really Free Software?'
An anonymous reader points out an article by Richard Stallman in The Guardian which questions whether Android should be described as 'free' or 'open.' Quoting:
"Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public License for Linux, but the Apache license on the rest of Android does not require source release. Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple. ... Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Hackers are working on Replicant, but it's a big job to support a new phone model, and there remains the problem of the firmware. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom."
Marketing: The art of making something seem better than it really is. And sadly, most people fall for it, which is why they keep using that approach.
Isn't a developer free to license something however they want, within the constraints of the licenses of whatever is being used? If Google suddenly said they weren't ever publishing source again, I'd be pretty peeved, but they had reasonable, non-evil reasons for not releasing 3.x, and have committed to releasing Ice Cream Sandwich. I'd like to see 3.x released, but as long as it's a non-regular occurrence, it doesn't bother me any - but i'm not quite as idealistic as RDS - if that were possible.
Idealism crashing against practical application.
At this point, I'm just happy that we are moving in the right direction.
Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting. Android exists solely to get people onto Google services for purposes of web advertising. The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems. Most users don't even care about such things. Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor, and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.
Remember, Google's main business is a closed, proprietary product--the search engine. Web traffic is regulated by a closed product run by an advertising megacorp. They are not some benevolent cheerleader of openness. They won't even implement Do Not Track in Chrome because it would interfere with their ad business.
You'd think he'd like to interject in his conversation for a moment.
Idealist pissed that not everyone subscribes completely to each tenet of his philosophy. News at 11.
Because Google has been promoting its supposed openness for years now, so it's kind of a big deal when one of the founders of the movement calls them out.
They also release some iOS 4 source parts. Is Android really more open/free?
The whole reason for android being closed source now is that there were five different versions of android that are/were incompatible with each other. This way google can rein in the errant OEM modifications that led to these incompatibilities.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Oh wait, he doesn't.
On the phone, Android is free software.
Ice Cream Sandwich is supposed to be Open Source.
Android 3 is not for phones, and the fact that people would complain about Android 3, and then follow up with "Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go" is why they did not release the source. People are clearly demonstrating they can't be trusted to keep it off the phone (I also imagine there was a little bit of pressure from tablet makers wanting to establish a market before the knock-offs could drop the price point).
Android is open source for the phone, and allegedly will remain into the future (along with becoming open source on the tablet).
All complaints about Android in summary focus on tablets, all complaints about devices focus on phones. Let's make are rants make sense please.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
"Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad "
That's nonsense. Google's one of the worst companies when it comes to respecting users' privacy and Android users are not Google's customers. Google's Android is all about sucking as much private data out of their users as possible. Apple and MS don't do that.
You need hardcore idealists to make progress, but yeah, it's generally best not to take everything they say too seriously.
Take `em out of their respective cages once in a while, let them scream about something for a bit, then put `em away till next year.
someone will leak the source code.
Read radical news here
Small correction for you - The world doesn't even care that it's open.
Thanks for asking...
If you are happy with Windows (without networking*) as your only** OS choice besides a few proprietary Unixs, then OK.
BSD license was a direct result of RMS lobbying the Berkeley folks to adopt a GPL type license. He failed to get them to go all the way to the GPL, but at least got them on the track of a free license.
It would be hard to argue that the free licenses that followed (like Apache) were not influenced by what came before them too.
Nearly every large site in the world is based on Linux, which is free software using the license RMS developed. Nearly all of these sites have contributed back to the projects that they are built on, proving the validity of the model RMS envisioned.
RMS has had, and still has, probably, the greatest influence on the state of modern computing of anyone today.
* In case you didn't realize it, M$ Windows used the TCP stack from BSD.
** Apple OSX stack is almost entirely based on free software.
Ah... Stallman. The unwashed, poo-flinging, rabid hermit that nobody listens to because they're so out of touch with society. It's one thing to acknowledge their contribution to society in the past, but to hold them up in modern times as a luminary only goes to show that your viewpoint is also out of touch.
Really? It's a big deal when RMS criticizes something for its supposed lack of moral purity? Please. RMS is a one-man outrage brigade who has long, LONG since outlived his usefulness. If you can find an article talking about Stallman doing something OTHER than being outraged that someone in the software field actually lives in the real world, THAT would be a Big Deal.
WHY are they less bad? For whom?
Because Android respects at least freedom 0 with respect to user applications: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose."
What does this mean? Phones running Android are less bad than phones running iOS or Windows Phone 7 for people who use applications distributed as free software because Android has the "Unknown sources" checkbox.* This lets the user obtain free applications from anywhere and hire anybody to improve them without having to seek the OS maker's permission to run them.
*Yes, even AT&T lately; citation available.
You don't really get to submit to Android like you do other open source software programs. There is a NIH (not invented here) attitude. It is "open sauce". Add your favorite sauce on top of it after it is done, but that is truly about it,.
Is "M$" some kind of retarded as fuck way to type "MS" that idiots use to look cool and trendy, or are you such a failure at life that you accidentally hit the 4 key rather than S like a non-fuckerlord would?
Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0
As far as I know, this isn't true.
What they said was that they were going to skip releasing the source to Honeycomb (3.0) and release the next version when it's ready.
Due to the nature of the source control system (in Android's case that'd be Git, I guess) the release will come with the complete commit history attached, so you can recreate Honeycomb if you wish.
They did say that they weren't sure if the Honeycomb releases would be properly tagged, though.
That's only true if you define "world" to be people who want it open.
If you want to define the "world" as every potential user of Android, the vast majority DON'T CARE if it's open. They care that it works, that's all.
People who rigidly cling to the notion that any software which hasn't been provided in a ideologically pure enough way is a Great Evil ... well, those people are as rabid and narrow minded as any other fanatic.
It's sad you got a Troll mod for pointing out that not everyone cares what RMS has to say. Because, an awful lot of us tuned him out years ago. Sure, he's a smart guy who has been an advocate for free software ... but his completely inflexible view that all software must live up to his notion, well, I just can't agree with him.
To me, he's that crazy guy on the corner with a "The End is Nigh" sign. Most of the times when I hear what he has to say, I disagree with him and then tune him out.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
He is one of the founders of the Open source movement. Just because he called on your beloved company google for their pissing on Open source and its philosophy doesn't mean some of the techies do not care. May be as others have noted, main stream people may not care. Being in the tech world I guess if you belive in OSS you ought to care.
> so it's kind of a big deal when one of the founders of the
> movement calls them out.
Not really.
RMS has called out damn near everyone with anything to do with free/open source software. I think it's almost at the point now where most projects/organizations should take it as a badge of honour when they've gotten large and important enough that RMS considers it a problem if they aren't 100% compliant with his concept of freedom.
Log in or piss off.
Without Stallmanites sticking to their convictions, there would be little or no Open or Free software, THAT'S FUCKING WHY.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Problem is most people don't think enough about things, and by the time they start caring too late.
Like people who think you're a nut for not liking region locks on media, right until the point where they move to another country, and find that their collection doesn't work on local players, and they can't play movies they buy from their home country.
Disagreement is fine, calling people "rabid Stallmanites" is insulting and gets a troll mod from me automatically. If you seriously want to make that point you can make it a bit more politely.
Why does a potty-mouth servant of Redmond want to use the abbreviation for Multiple Sclerosis and apply it to the biggest copy cat company like that? We could use their ticker name MSFT though...
It's sometimes difficult to not think like then when you're confronted with someone who has a rigid, ideological position, whose starting point in all discussions is that they're right and you're wrong, and there is no room for any give.
RMS and some people who agree with him are sufficiently fixed in their ideology that it's hard not to end up saying "rabid Stallmanites".
You might as well try to convince someone their religion is wrong as try to convince RMS that not all software needs to be open. He and others are pretty inflexible on this position.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'm very surprised The Guardian published this article as-is. A non-geek won't have a clue what most of the article means! Maybe it shows how far removed from reality RMS really is. A layman's not going to know what a binary blob or a firmware is, and they aren't explained. Very strange for mainstream news in my opinion.
just tell us, which answer will make you go away???
... can you spell it?
I swear I'm not trying to troll here. The argument that OSS is "innovative" has another strike against it as we see the reinvention of computing with mobile devices. Everyone who's pushing the state of the art ahead is working in private industry. Nothing groundbreaking has come from the open source world even though computing has been turned upside down in the last couple of years. The theorists would say that this is the perfect time to break old paradigms, but every open-source effort is pretty much completely derivative from a functionality standpoint.
The open-source model is great, but current events are showing that the pioneers are going to come from closed-source developers.
Many of us find RMS's concept of freedom useful.
In particular, it is news to me that the source of Android 3.0+ is not available. I have been considering learning Android development. It is useful to know what the situation is.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
There's no point in being flexible in the position.
Imagine say, Martin Luther King being flexible in his position. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character... when the authorities feel like it".
There's just no point to that, because it changes nothing. If Stallman wasn't inflexible he wouldn't be effectively saying anything, and you wouldn't have heard of him (and probably what resulted from his efforts) in the first place.
Nobody seriously dedicated to something is flexible in their dedication. All the people who got something big done were uncompromising about it.
Okay, yes, as many people seem to be parroting in the comments, most people don't care whether or not their software is free (as in freedom) and open source. However, I don't really see how that's an argument for proprietary software or the behavior of companies like Apple, Microsoft, and yes, Google. (And the statement is indeed being used to make such an argument.)
Most people don't care about much at all. They seem to care when, for example, a televised address from the President prevents them from watching their favorite program on the idiot box. They seem to care when their local sports team is beaten by another sports team. But when they are told that the company that controls the software on their mobile phone (already they are nodding off...) is spying on them, recording their location, and selling their personal information to other companies for profit, do they care? No. They don't even seem to care when can only install programs on their phones that the OS-maker allows them to. (Of course they don't care, they can still install Angry Birds.) They especially don't care when their phone company turns over their private conversations to the police without even putting up a fight for the consumer. That would be because it isn't *their* private conversations, it's the private conversations of those angry hooligans marching in the streets asking for change.
Most people don't care about freedom in general unless it interferes with their daily pleasures/addictions, and cannot see the long-term consequences of the slow unraveling of their freedoms. The fact remains that proprietary software *is* an attack on our freedoms that we may well end up regretting some day. The fact remains that there *is* an alternative in FOSS. The fact remains that we still have enough freedoms to take a stand against the corporations and the corruption in government. And, in my opinion, those of us that understand these things should indeed take a stand, as RMS is doing.
When?
I've seen fanboys promoting its openness and how much greater it is than evil competitions product, but I've not seen Google actually say anything of the sort.
Google actually has been marketing it based on things people ACTUALLY care about, which interestingly enough, has nothing to do with source code.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Android for mobile phones is still completedly free and open sourced. If you want the source, get the Gingerbread 2.3.4 source code, which is the latest version of Android for mobile phones. Honeycomb is NOT a mobile phone OS, therefore it's not valid to say that Android is not open-sourced for mobile phones.
Android for tablets is currently not open-sourced. I have access to the Honeycomb source code and it's not hard to see why - Google has pretty much hacked in tablet support and it looks like a rush job to get a tablet version of Android out so that Motorola, Samsung, etc will be able to push out tablets to compete with the iPad. Think of Honeycomb as a fork off Android, or a feature branch.
Android is apparently first and foremost a mobile phone OS, and Google apparently only wants to release the Android source code that is able to run on mobile phones. The good news is, Ice Cream Sandwich is the release where all the features of Honeycomb will be properly merged back into the mobile phone trunk code. Higher resolution mobile phones will be able to use the Honeycomb UI features like Fragments.
My beloved company? I cary an iPhone. I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass about ideological purity when it comes to software. I just want it to work.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
His concept may be marginally useful. But it still prevents as much use as it enables. He needs to come to grips with the fact that GPL, while helpful in keeping code from being locked up, also locks people out. It is incompatible with several other licenses, prevents certain linking, etc. If he really wanted to have free as in speech software, he'd be out there pimping licenses like BSD. (And yes, I know that companies can modify BSD code and lock up their changes - that's freedom for you).
Without Linus Torvalds, there would be little or no open source software. Linus is hardly a rabid Stallmanite.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
It's all private industry, unless you know of a government lab doing this.
And nothing truly groundbreaking has come from the closed source space, either. Mostly you see the efforts of massive marketing waves and a decent user interface.
Development happens where the money is. MS, Apple, and Google are dumping money into their own platforms and not others. Thus activity is happening there.
I'm sure if you funded an open source project as well as you funded some closed source projects, you'd see something pioneering crop up. But I don't really see pioneering, I see dumbing down and an increase in walled gardens paired with lots and lots of marketing.
Yes, but unlike Martin Luther King and civil rights, I'm in favor of software not always being something which needs to be open.
Sure, RMS believes in it ... that's fine. But not everybody agrees with him. At a certain point, his opinion becomes him telling other people what they're free to do.
If he holds a rigid "either/or" position on if, for example, software that I write needs to be open or not ... well, he can go to hell because he doesn't get a vote on what it I do with code I write.
If all you're doing is trying to tell me that I'm committing some form of sin because I write proprietary software, you're a rabid zealot, and I will treat you as such.
Which, is what a lot of people do with RMS ... they just tune him out as someone who has a very loud opinion, but that it's none of his damned business.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
A "troll" mod is just a moderator's way of saying "you're wrong but I can't say why, so I'll just mark you down". I ignore them.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Some in the FOSS community seem to have taken a page from the Tea Party handbook. Go all or nothing, and don't attack the closed, but rather that of those who are the most open... just not open enough for the all or nothing croud. Then again, what else do we expect from RMS?
I8-D
The Internet, Wikileaks, Linux, Wikipedia, Bitcoin, ... Pick one.
I don't get what you're getting at.
Whether you agree or not with his position doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying.
My point is that during MLK's time there were plenty people around who didn't agree with him. But if he just had shut up and decided to compromise he wouldn't have got anywhere.
The same way, it makes no sense for Stallman to shut up, because then he wouldn't be saying anything at all. Your agreement or disagreement is entirely irrelevant, if Stallman really wants to get something done, he's got to keep saying what he does, whether you like it or not.
Sure he does. He for instance can choose not to buy proprietary software if he wishes, and that's effectively a vote because there's no point in writing any if nobody buys it. If he manages to convince enough people that he's got a point that's your vote right there.
You do the same thing every time you decide to buy or not to buy a music CD, that sort of thing is effectively a vote on whether the next album get made.
I'm not saying anything about my own opinion on the matter actually. And I don't really care if you think I'm a zealot or not, that's your own business.
"Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones ..."
Written like someone who has never actually looked into WP7 phones.
MS far is less evil than both Apple and Google now when it comes down to anything that matters with your phone.
I currently have an Android phone, and my next phone (which I don't expect to buy for at least another year), will be a WP8 phone if Google doesn't clean up their act.
The only 'innovative' thing on that list is the Internet, and it was devloped by DARPA.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
That's the point. Linus chose GPLv2 almost by accident without deep consideration - hence thanks to Stallman. Linus has indicated (according to the gossip chains) that he might not have chosen GPL if he were choosing today.
Thus RMS putting GPLv2 into Linus hands gave us a system around which freedom zealots can assemble. (As we don't have hurd). BSD doesn't attract zealots and so makes less progress.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Stop asking yourself easy questions to make yourself look smart, RMS.
It's a shame your whole post falls flat due to the simple fact that RMS never defended Open Source. The name and concept of the open source development model comes from a different 'faction', that want to downplay the moral argument of Free Software and promote the technical advantages.
RMS theory of Free Software relates to the rights of the *users*, and how proprietary software is immoral since it takes away such rights. Where the software comes from is more or less irrelevant.
Dilbert RSS feed
So... the answer to the question is still up in the air? Gotcha.
If it's news to you, you must be hiding under a rock, or at least not paying attention at all to Android.
To summarize the situation:
Google has been temporarily withholding the 3.x source for two reasons:
1) They needed time to work on their anti-fragmentation strategy after the rampant Tivoization and poison-pilling that many of the manufacturers (especially) practiced with 1.x and 2.x - This may have been a side aspect to their purchase of Motorola, since Moto was the worst of the major Android handset manufacturers in terms of Tivoization and poison-pill handsets. Once the Motorola purchase completes they can put a kibosh on Moto's insane bootloader-locking practices. (However it remains to be seen whether or not they actually do this - but it would be stupid of them not to.)
2) 3.x had a lot of tablet-specific cruft in it that Google did not want anyone shoehorning back into a phone handset
They've clearly stated that when the tablet (3.x) and phone (1.x/2.x) branches are merged in ICS (most likely 4.0), the source for ICS will be released. I believe they have also stated that 3.x source will be retroactively released once ICS is out.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
And it's news.
To be generous to Google, I think a lot a crappy Android 2.x (mostly Eclair/Froyo) devices were damaging the brand and thereby the platform in general. By tightening the reigns on the 3.x releases they can dictate some quality standards on the hardware vendors. I haven't seen a lot of crappy tablets running Honeycomb.
Does it mean it's not open? Yes. At least not right now.
The real test will be whether or not Google releases the Honeycomb sources after they start the next release.
I notice a trend among the Apple fanbois. It took a while to notice what was wrong but once I hit on the answer it was shocking.
Lately you guys use Apple's insane profits (i.e. the fact they ruthlessly screw as many dollars out of you fans as possible) as a positive. You always cite sales figures, profits, and other things that stockholders of Apple should be approving of but a customer who isn't totally emotionally invested in the Cult of Mac shouldn't care so much for.
Not that the the anti side doesn't gleefully note that Macs are a 10% niche, iPhone has been eclipsed by Android, etc. but you don't see our side extolling the financial strength of Samsung or Dell or giddy about how Dell shafted us lately.
Democrat delenda est
It's still no excuse. Open source isn't about releasing binaries first, and then promising to release the source when you deem it appropriate. If Google wants to market themselves under the open source banner, then they should play by the rules.
... why we should jail developers who build proprietary software. If the don't want to produce free software, then they shouldn't have the privilege of being free either. Once that happens, all this closed-source nonsense goes away.
...I'm surprised no one's mentioned it yet in this thread.
"I disagree with you, but can't actually say how you're wrong, so I'll focus on the ridiculous semantics of how your use of "open source" was technically incorrect, and thus your entire comment is wrong. Also, you write like a kitten molester."
Until I can tell T-Mobile to shove their forced bloatware up their ass without rooting my phone, my phone isn't open at all.
its tied to the carriers network, and you are ultimately under their control by contract.
I don't doubt this source withholding has a lot to do with carriers demands on Google, much as a lot of the restrictions with Iphones were demanded by AT&T..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A sad turn of events when the vast majority of smartphone and tablet developers have been faked out by google. "applications" and the android "market" are no substitute for a free downloadable program. Too many developers have been trapped by android. In Japan, a former bastion of true open development, more than 95 percent of smartphone and tablet users now have their every move logged by the "sheisters" (for lack of a more gentle word) at google. As we all should know, not so long ago text messages were free in Japan. The data merely "piggybacked" on the voice data, for which the consumer pays. Monetization and data capture were not the motives, rather customer service, convenience, and a certain accepted standard of implementation of technological advances. Mind you, the so-called 3g mobile (i-mode) was a reality here before J-phone was taken over, at which point text messages and even photo text messages were still free on all networks (in Japan). It is sad indeed to have so much talent subdued by the likes of google, which is now akin to AMDOCS in their methods of justifying their illicit databasing. Open indeed, Brin and Page should be drawn and quartered along with Rupert Murdoch.
This is simple to explain away.
Unlike "before", when there were some fairly interesting and innovative ideas on the mobile realm from open source in both hardware and software, there's actually a fair amount of R&D competition. Nokia's N800, N880, N900 and such, on Maemo, were open source to their core, with some fairly solid design philosophies. That was about it in terms of "open source mobile", and it had a fair amount of effort behind it (it, as well as fltk, tinyX, etc. on which it was based, and then later, Qt).
Now, however, you can actually get a job to work on this shit. Once taht's done, however, you're likely to have an NDA/noncomp which would inhibit your ability to work on OSS... oh well. (They're likely making serious bank in a down economy; don't jinx that shit.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I don't quite get how the source for Android 3.0 not being released as of yet makes the entire project not free software. Any copyright owner can fork a free software project and decide not to release the forked source. That doesn't mean what's out there isn't free software anymore... The robust community of roms for android phones and tablets is a testament to the fact that Android is indeed free software.
Personally I feel like an idiot for falling for the PR hype and supporting Android. Now I find it was all a lie and I still don't have a secure phone. Lied to, used and cheated. You could say Apple are closed but are are at least straightforward about it.
That said, we did get contributions back to linux didn't we? No, we didn't get much of that either.
I get more and more in agreement with RMS as time goes on. You got to be hard with people and companies, it's the only thing they understand. It's getting better but for the meantime, extremism is what people seem to want.
I don't want to sound angry with Google, rather I am embarrassed of myself for falling for it. Perhaps more could have been done at inception. Perhaps there's more we can do now, somehow...
A blog I run for the wealth
It's not semantics. It's a fundamentally different approach. Open Source is about the model of development, Free Software is about the users (regardless of the model). There's no reason to think RMS would be grouchy about the lack of success of the OS development model, since his concerns were always related to the users' rights, not the developers.
RMS himself has written a whole article about the issue: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Dilbert RSS feed
Without Linus Torvalds, there would be little or no open source software. Linus is hardly a rabid Stallmanite.
GNU tools were in widespread use before Linux (which famously used rather a lot of GNU), and are still in widespread use on systems other than just Linux. The GPL as a licence was already growing in popularity prior to Linux. As was the BSD, MIT, and other open source licences. Whereas the GPL licence itself owes its existence to Stallman and a spat over a printer driver.
Odd, as a consumer I don't see that as bad. In fact the higher the revenue in an App store the worse that market seems for me.
But maybe I am just to used to Linux on the desktop/laptop and the cheapness of just installing what I need for free.
I don't play simplistic games that were old fashioned on the commodore for just a few bucks (but if you count investment makes them more expensive then full price games) and the idea of having to pay a buck here and a buck there for trivial functionality that on a desktop is just part of the base makes no sense to me.
Maybe I am just being allergic to being nickle and dimed to death but when people say they got several hundred dollars worth of apps on their phones I take the hint and stay well clear.
To put it simple, you just proven that a fool with an iPhone is soon parted from his money. Taking all your money, there is an app for that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Or in the tl;dr version: "You might get the code... some day" The previous bullshit I heard was that only 3.0 would be closed, once it was cleaned up in 3.1 it would be released. Now they're feeding you more bullshit and you're swallowing it like a sucker.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In such a case, from version 3 onwards, he should simply have packed it w/ the BSD license. Or MIT. Or Lucent. Or Mozilla. Or Apache. Or...
MOBILE PHONES GALAXY (527)
Enter the galaxy of mobile phones and have the information about all mobiles including LG, Nokia, Motorola, T-Mobile, Blackberry, Samsung, Sony and more . Just log on to http://www.mobile-phone.pk.
If you had used GNU/Linux this wouldn't have been a problem, would it.
Then people would know that Linux is the Kernel and that the system YOU want to call Linux is actually a GNU system on the Linux kernel.
But, no, because RMS said you ought to, you dug your heels in and SCREAMED like a little child about how this was STUPID and UNFREE to DEMAND that the system YOU wanted to call Linux was Linux kernel and then the OS running on it.
Now that Android are CORRECTLY calling their system Linux which is the Linux kernel running the Android OS on it, you suddenly want Google to stop calling it Linux.
It's as Linux as your Red Hat Linux is Linux.
It has the kernel that is Linux and it has the system you interact with using its services. Just in this case, it's Android not GNU.
Mostly you see the efforts of massive marketing waves and a decent user interface.
I don't think that's true, but even then, what OSS usually lacks is a well designed user interface.
I'm sure if you funded an open source project as well as you funded some closed source projects
Well apparently OSS isn't being funded on the same level then. Maybe because it's harder to make money that way. Sure RedHat, MySQL(now Oracle) and a few others make some money, but none of them seem to have been able to become really large scale players.
If you look at the OSS that is successful, it seems to be mostly stuff that doesn't have a user interface, like kernels, and mail, database and web servers.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Nokia's Maemo had a fair bit of open source stuff in it, but plenty of non-free blobs too. For instance there was a blob to charge the battery.
While google's ad business is one of the large reasons that they kept openwashed android there is another that is even bigger. Carrier lock in. Just about every phone sold in the North American market is locked to a carrier and further than that each carrier wants to control every aspect of the device they can to charge you more without losing your business. A carrier would be too scared to sell a completely open phone on a plan for fear of losing this control. Complimented by the fact that the average consumer thinks they get an amazing deal on a phone even though they pay more in the contract encourages companies to keep this control.
What needs to happen is for carrier lock in to be stopped. So carriers can compete on their service offerings alone and the phone market can compete on its own. Without a separate open market for the phones no truly open device can compete because they're always edged out by the plan subsidized closed phones offered by carriers. I believe that plan subsidized phones should and can still exist without carrier lock in. Why do I have to use the phone only on your network as long as I still pay out the contract I should own the device as a separate entity.
What other than a branded phone will work on a CDMA2000 network (that is, any U.S. network that isn't now or soon owned by AT&T)?
it's not his choice now. Not all the code is his. All the contributors have also used GPLv2
If Linus had the choice, maybe he would go X11 or Apache or BSD...
but thanks to Stallman being there, we got GPLv2. Because Stallman cared about freedom, we get the updates from all the other kernel contributors making the whole kernel cool, instead of each proprietary release cool in a special fiscally licensable way.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
You said, "Google has done nothing to encourage Free Software."
You said nothing valid, nothing backed up by any evidence. So, very hypocritical if you yourself can't make a valid rebuttal.
However, you perfectly gave me evidence. All or nothing. You say Google has done nothing to encourage free software.
You completely ignore code.google.com.
You completely ignore Chromium.
You completely ignore Android and the ecosystem of free and oss apps that have built around it.
I could go on. Fact is, you are the all or nothing person that I believe is the problem with FOSS. And quite frankly, while you response was flamebait, the entire all or nothing FOSS is flamebait to more moderate users with ridiculous claims, using your words, such as "Google has done nothing". That isn't just ridiculous, but a complete lie. Whereas, my point is perfectly proven by such lies.
FOSS adopting MS F.U.D. It's sad, pitiful, and more should be expected from supposedly smart individuals.
But give those individuals a fanatical cause, and you get PETA, Tea Party, or RMS. Thank you for proving my point.
I8-D
That guy just proved my point. I don't want to rehash, but read my response to him. It's all or nothing for some of these people. It's extremism, and it has no place for groups that don't want ridiculed like the other groups I mentioned. It makes FOSS community look like digital jihadists fighting a war of purity.
It's very very unproductive and only attacks moderates, not the real enemies of FOSS.
I8-D
maybe open source bada will solve our problems ? : http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/20/samsung-taking-bada-open-source-in-2012/ (engadget)
Google never said Android was free software. Google does maintain that Android is open, and they'll release the source code when they think it's ready. Android does not have to meet the FSF's strict definition of free and open source software; it doesn't even use the same license. A reality check by Brian Proffitt: http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/204973/more-partisanship-free-software-leadership
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
I've never heard this. It has always been "once it's cleaned up in ICS it will be released".
3.1 is not ICS.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Wrong. That's what the GPL is about.
The Apache license has no such requirements.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
No, you're wrong. I didn't mention the GPL. I said, "If Google wants to market themselves under the open source banner, then they should play by the rules."
It's not that Google is violating a license. It's that they market Android as an open source operating system but don't actually adhere to open source principles. That's fraud.
Stallman writes, "Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom."
Sorry, but how is a platform, flooded with unmoderated, amateur crap (Android), be considered better than a platform which, for example, actually has professional quality audio recorders and editors and near pro video recorder/editors. As usual, the "free" software clueless fail to understand that freedom from having to wade knee-deep through poo makes an operating system worse, not better.
Sorry, but I haven't seen much to attract me from iPhone. Especially in the area of media production apps.
I see even in the US you can get uncontracted phones e.g. on ebay, amazon etc.
Where can I try the screen and touch screen of an uncontracted phone before I buy it?
Ipod touch is simply smartphone without phone. In these days of mass production, it doesn't cost much to add the gsm chip
Then why does an iPhone without a contract (in those countries where it is offered) cost twice as much as an iPod touch?
aww, this is all true. To be honest I've held off on Android and iPhone... I still have a Symbian phone (!) because I'm waiting on all this mess.
What about OpenPhone, I wonder what happened to that.
What got me thinking about all this was when I was abroad and needed to contact my Bank but didn't want to pay an international rate.
VoIP - I use a Betamax provider. The only way to secure it I could think of would be PPTP to a VPN(kinda only option for Symbian as it's so old). I had a go but couldn't get it working... it's not perfect but I'd settle for it
Callback services to a mobilephone - can work, I'd use this next time but at the time I didn't have it.
Email - how safe is email via a closed source phone anyway?
You can buy `securephones` but where's the source? Usually there is none so how can it be secure?
Is Cyanogenmod any better?
The best I can think of it taking a cheap Android based netbook/tablet for VoIP via a VPN, loading Ubuntu on it and matching that with a 3G dongle. But that's a bit bulky for casual use.
A blog I run for the wealth