4 ms·

You are right that it's the best that we have at the moment, but from where I'm standing, openness in phones is decreasing, not increasing - each new generation

You are right that it's the best that we have at the moment, but from where I'm standing, openness in phones is decreasing, not increasing - each new generation of Android devices seems to contain more and more locked-down proprietry code. Maybe I'm being naive, but when I hear 'open' I'm thinking that that means that if I don't like a small part of my otherwise great smartphone, I can go in and modify the code that handles that specific part, compile it, and download the modified code onto my phone so that it does what it wants. That is several orders of magnitude of effort away from today's reality of: - find a security flaw - design an exploit of the security flaw so that I can root my device - extract the drivers from the binary so that I can add them back into my new image after recompiling - modify code and compile - reload new image onto phone I just feel that the open source community is getting sucked in to supporting this solution that is dragging us away from what would truly be an open platform. If Rubin was being honest about an 'open' Android, it would be under GPLv3, as RMS says. It's not, and the reason it isn;t is because it is not open. Rubin is spinning this, and I do not respect that.

davidw 16y ago
The Apache license is liberal and open, and very much free. RMS doesn't like the fact that you can build proprietary stuff on top of it, but sometimes you need that freedom in order to involve companies in your community. I agree that we're still not seeing manufacturers do quite what we'd like, but I think it'll come with time, most likely in places that are not the United States: Europe and China most likely. And, to be clear, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it's going to come from Apple.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  This is a logical fallacy -- you define and use two definitions of the word "free" in the same context. On the one hand you associate freedom with RMS's context, which must include the ability to actually run the free code. RMS views the software and the specialized hardware it runs on as one and the same -- inseparable in freedom. In the sentence just before it, though, you argue that freedom is simply the Apache license as applied to software. In fact, what you are actually arguing begs the question because you assert that the software is free because it is under the Apache license, but we know that the Apache license is free because the software is liberal and open, as defined by the Apache license. Before you can approach whether or not the software is free you must first define what free is. The parent poster is relatively safe in this because he provides RMS's definition of free, which is encoded in the GPLv3. Until you provide a similar definition I don't think one can state the software is either free or unfree. I agree that we're still not seeing manufacturers do quite what we'd like, but I think it'll come with time, most likely in places that are not the United States: Europe and China most likely. And, to be clear, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it's going to come from Apple. I think this is just speculation.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > define what free is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces. > I think this is just speculation. I'd bet a lot of money on it. Apple has a long, long history of making beautiful, innovative, forward-thinking, and fairly locked down products, from the Mac onwards.
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      That defines "open". Free is defined here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Also, the FSF (and I assume by extension RMS) has no problem with the Apache 2.0 license which is a free software license and compatible with GPLv3.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces. OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't everyone's definition of free. To be even more precise, the OSI itself doesn't even call that definition free, they call it 'open source.' The FSF, in fact, has a contrary definition that they maintain is actually free software. Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the FSF as 'free.' This leads in to the main problem that Google/Android have -- when they market Android as being open they don't really define what open is. It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all fronts, so the question is really what Google considers "open" to mean. Jobs put this observation into an interesting context because it's important to note that a lot of software in the iPhone is free as well. In the manual you will find a list (quite a long one) of all the GPL and BSD licensed software included inside the iPhone. The question, then, isn't who is open and who is closed, but what the definition of 'open' is and who more closely abides by it.
      - bad_user 16y ago
        OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't everyone's definition of free No shit ... my definition of "free" includes me distributing the code I made however I want. If it where for me I would include a new rule in the OSI definition that excludes GPL from being called "open source", because its copyleft extends to the whole package that links to GPL pieces, and for me this is not "free". Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the FSF as 'free.' The Apache license has been approved as "Free Software", which is by no means the same as "free" ... an English word that you cannot trademark. It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all fronts In my definition of "open" that doesn't include forcing the phone manufacturers to not build locked phones. If my voice doesn't matter (I'm a nobody) here's the voice of Linus Torvalds (you know, the guy without whom you can't speak about Linux): [Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care. And I don't care about what Jobs says, the real question is: can you build your own iOS phone? can you participate in its development (like contributing bug fixes)? Can you choose phones from multiple manufacturers and multiple carriers? Can you install your own apps on it without going through that certification shit-hole? No? Well Android is a lot more open, regardless of definition.
yock 16y ago
You can absolutely do that today by purchasing an unlocked handset. I think the problem is your expectation of being able to do that on a subsidized handset, where you've traded certain contract terms for a heavily discounted device.
davidw 16y ago
A few more notes, while I'm at it: > openness in phones is decreasing, not increasing - each new generation of Android devices seems to contain more and more locked-down proprietry code. "openness in phones" took a huge leap forward with Android. 5 years ago, the idea of a widely deployed, almost completely open phone system would have seemed like science fiction. Just because some companies are adding crap doesn't take anything away from the core system, which continues to be free and continues to improve. > the open source community is getting sucked in to supporting this solution that is dragging us away from what would truly be an open platform. Which is, pray tell? Google has poured millions of dollars into Android, and we get that under a very free license. The "open source community" isn't some magical thing: it takes real work to make stuff happen, and Google is doing it with Android, including stuff like usability and GUI work that the "open source community" hasn't been so strong at in the past. So I don't really see some magical solution just wafting down from the heavens... it's simply not on the radar at this point. The only other remote possibilities are Meego and perhaps Symbian, but I don't really see much going on there.

davidw 16y ago

The Apache license is liberal and open, and very much free. RMS doesn't like the fact that you can build proprietary stuff on top of it, but sometimes you need that freedom in order to involve companies in your community. I agree that we're still not seeing manufacturers do quite what we'd like, but I think it'll come with time, most likely in places that are not the United States: Europe and China most likely. And, to be clear, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it's going to come from Apple.

Locke1689 16y ago
This is a logical fallacy -- you define and use two definitions of the word "free" in the same context. On the one hand you associate freedom with RMS's context, which must include the ability to actually run the free code. RMS views the software and the specialized hardware it runs on as one and the same -- inseparable in freedom. In the sentence just before it, though, you argue that freedom is simply the Apache license as applied to software. In fact, what you are actually arguing begs the question because you assert that the software is free because it is under the Apache license, but we know that the Apache license is free because the software is liberal and open, as defined by the Apache license. Before you can approach whether or not the software is free you must first define what free is. The parent poster is relatively safe in this because he provides RMS's definition of free, which is encoded in the GPLv3. Until you provide a similar definition I don't think one can state the software is either free or unfree. I agree that we're still not seeing manufacturers do quite what we'd like, but I think it'll come with time, most likely in places that are not the United States: Europe and China most likely. And, to be clear, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it's going to come from Apple. I think this is just speculation.
- davidw 16y ago
  > define what free is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces. > I think this is just speculation. I'd bet a lot of money on it. Apple has a long, long history of making beautiful, innovative, forward-thinking, and fairly locked down products, from the Mac onwards.
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    That defines "open". Free is defined here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Also, the FSF (and I assume by extension RMS) has no problem with the Apache 2.0 license which is a free software license and compatible with GPLv3.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces. OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't everyone's definition of free. To be even more precise, the OSI itself doesn't even call that definition free, they call it 'open source.' The FSF, in fact, has a contrary definition that they maintain is actually free software. Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the FSF as 'free.' This leads in to the main problem that Google/Android have -- when they market Android as being open they don't really define what open is. It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all fronts, so the question is really what Google considers "open" to mean. Jobs put this observation into an interesting context because it's important to note that a lot of software in the iPhone is free as well. In the manual you will find a list (quite a long one) of all the GPL and BSD licensed software included inside the iPhone. The question, then, isn't who is open and who is closed, but what the definition of 'open' is and who more closely abides by it.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't everyone's definition of free No shit ... my definition of "free" includes me distributing the code I made however I want. If it where for me I would include a new rule in the OSI definition that excludes GPL from being called "open source", because its copyleft extends to the whole package that links to GPL pieces, and for me this is not "free". Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the FSF as 'free.' The Apache license has been approved as "Free Software", which is by no means the same as "free" ... an English word that you cannot trademark. It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all fronts In my definition of "open" that doesn't include forcing the phone manufacturers to not build locked phones. If my voice doesn't matter (I'm a nobody) here's the voice of Linus Torvalds (you know, the guy without whom you can't speak about Linux): [Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care. And I don't care about what Jobs says, the real question is: can you build your own iOS phone? can you participate in its development (like contributing bug fixes)? Can you choose phones from multiple manufacturers and multiple carriers? Can you install your own apps on it without going through that certification shit-hole? No? Well Android is a lot more open, regardless of definition.

yock 16y ago

You can absolutely do that today by purchasing an unlocked handset. I think the problem is your expectation of being able to do that on a subsidized handset, where you've traded certain contract terms for a heavily discounted device.

davidw 16y ago

A few more notes, while I'm at it: > openness in phones is decreasing, not increasing - each new generation of Android devices seems to contain more and more locked-down proprietry code. "openness in phones" took a huge leap forward with Android. 5 years ago, the idea of a widely deployed, almost completely open phone system would have seemed like science fiction. Just because some companies are adding crap doesn't take anything away from the core system, which continues to be free and continues to improve. > the open source community is getting sucked in to supporting this solution that is dragging us away from what would truly be an open platform. Which is, pray tell? Google has poured millions of dollars into Android, and we get that under a very free license. The "open source community" isn't some magical thing: it takes real work to make stuff happen, and Google is doing it with Android, including stuff like usability and GUI work that the "open source community" hasn't been so strong at in the past. So I don't really see some magical solution just wafting down from the heavens... it's simply not on the radar at this point. The only other remote possibilities are Meego and perhaps Symbian, but I don't really see much going on there.