3 ms·
> Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers? Because carriers are staggeringly stupid, I think. > I can't think of a single Android device that doesn
by technomancy 16y ago
> Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers?
Because carriers are staggeringly stupid, I think.
> I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it.
I wish that were true: "Unlike the DROID, the Milestone has a bootloader that only allows signed Firmware to load. This prevents users from booting Custom ROM images not signed by Motorola that have become popular in the Droid modding community."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milestone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milesto...
Many Motorola phones are similarly restricted. Did I mention carriers are phenomenally stupid?
- jrockway 16y agoDidn't that finally get cracked, though? If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. Instead, they do the equivalent of asking you really nicely not to root the device. Motorola tries harder than most, though, I will agree.
- technomancy 16y ago> Didn't that finally get cracked, though? Not unless it was done quite recently. The Droid X and Droid 2 are still locked down. > If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. From what I've read the Droid X's bootloader is quite a bit like that.
- jrockway 16y agoYes, it was quite recently: http://erictric.com/2010/08/26/motorola-droid-2-root-also-works-for-motorola-droid-x-running-android-2-2-froyo/ http://erictric.com/2010/08/26/motorola-droid-2-root-also-wo...