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.
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.
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?
Each tenet of his philosophy?! How can something be open or free at all if the source code isn't even available? That's the fundamental basis of the whole idea.
Then Google can't keep pretending it's an "open platform."
Small correction for you - The world doesn't even care that it's open.
Can't be trusted to use an OS how they wanted to? Do you not see how such restrictions and artificial headstarts are against the spirit of openness that Google claimed Android represented?
I wouldn't say Android is a move away from openness but if it's a move towards greater openness at all, it's a very tiny one.
In practice an Android phone with a locked bootloader (and running a closed-source Android version) is as closed as an iPhone. How is that a significant step towards greater openness? Because the kernel is a distant relative of the Linux kernel? Big deal, some Windows versions used a BSD network stack and nobody was cheering.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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,.
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.
> 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."
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.
How exactly is that different from "Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0"?
It's different in the sense that it will be published.
I would just like to remind you, and everyone else, of Andy Rubin's tweet about Android:
"the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”"
If Google is going to go against their own definition of 'open', and their supposed commitment to release the source code, that's their choice. But don't spin it, don't apologize for them, don't defend them. It's especially galling on a site where a large chunk of the subscribers crucify Apple and anybody who even remotely expresses a like for Apple's method of doing things.
I'm not apologising for anyone. I just stated a fact -- it will be released, although not in a timely manner.
It's not a detail either. It may be important in order to build custom ROMs for devices which might not be able to run the next version for some reason.
You are the one attaching opinion to my words which I purposely left out. If you care so much, here is my opinion: I think it's bullshit that they are dragging their feet in this.
I used to think that their "closed until release" development process was a fair compromise between keeping new features hidden for marketing or competitive purposes and abiding by the open-source ideals they set themselves up to.
But that's only true as long as they play by the book. I didn't like the arbitrary way they decided to withhold the source, and I thought the fragmentation excuse was bullshit anyway.
So there you have it: my opinion, which still has nothing to do with the fact that 3.0 will be released.
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.
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.
"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.
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
Even if you weren't missing the point, this wouldn't really be accurate. Even on mobile phones, there are chunks of Android that have never been free. If you want a (relatively) cheap way to see exactly what I mean, get a Nook Color and throw CM7 on there without installing the non-free components (which include Marketplace, YouTube, and the infrastructure for Google accounts). There's a bunch of stuff just missing. (The same stuff is also missing on the Nook Color's stock OS, which again, is running a phone version of Android, not the tablet version.)
Heck, if you insist on limiting the conversation to phones and nothing else, look at the iDroid project. There's a ton of stuff missing that's not because of undocumented hardware (though there's also some stuff missing for exactly that reason, but that doesn't invalidate the point).
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?
Android is double-licensed: the Linux kernel is GPLv2 and the rest is Apache v2.
The kernel for 3.0 has been published in accordance to the license. I'd give you a link to it, but kernel.org is still down.
The rest, which is really the most interesting part is what they're holding back, and they're allowed to by the Apache license.
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
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.
This confusion is precisely why the FSF complained about using the term "Linux" to refer to the OS when it is only the kernel. You need lots of user space code to complete the OS (and in fact the kernel is a small part of your OS).
Linux is the kernel. It specifically allows you to run any code you want in user space on top of it. Usually Linux ships with GNU user space tools along with X windows and your desktop environment and whatever else you want. Where the OS stops being the OS and starts being just whatever you want to run is probably open to debate, but generally speaking with a Linux kernel you get GNU plus X. There are very few exceptions.
Android is one of the exceptions. You have Linux and Android. Android takes over where you would normally have GNU plus X. Virtually all of your user experience with your OS is a result of either GNU plus X, or in this case Android. The Linux kernel is really only important to programmers, or for hardware compatibility. On most Linux distributions, you don't even usually interface with the kernel directly as a programmer. You use the C library which gives you a nice Posix interface (a long time ago Linux had it's own C library, but now I think everybody uses GNU's). With Android, you interface with Android that interfaces with the kernel.
Like I said, the Linux kernel specifically allows anyone to run whatever they want in the user space (without that provision, you would only be able to run GPL compatible code on your system, which would be too limiting, even for the FSF). So Android can be licensed however they want. They decided to license some of the Android versions under the Apache license. So far they have not licensed anything with version 3.0+ with a free software license.
This is not necessarily a problem, except that you can already buy devices with 3.0 installed. This means that these people, who may have thought they were buying a machine with a free software OS, do not have access to the code. It's really not acceptable to tell people your OS is open source and then publish a version which isn't (unless you warn them in big neon letters first). Maybe some people don't care. But I assure you that some people care very much.
Let's reverse the argument a little.
If Apple had very thin margins it would simply cease to be Apple. It would stop doing R&D and the design work that you hate. However, you don't have to buy or even like Apple to enjoy the benefits of their R&D. Android's interface would likely never had seen the light of day without Apple's iPhone, or at the very least much later. Do you remember Symbian from the smartphone market leaders of 2006 ?
So you should encourage fanbois. Keep them buying Apple's products. It's not your loss, it is actually your gain.
Why are you picking "sides" at all? Don't you realise how silly it makes you seem? Feel free to dislike Apple as a company, feel free to dislike how they price their products, and feel free to dislike their marketing... and go on living your life rather than picking the "side" that Google are on and having these petty, futile arguments. Believe me, Google are not on your side.