5 ms·

Interesting point buried in here: since Android is open source, you could go in and fix the bug, but then because you're not running an official Android version

Interesting point buried in here: since Android is open source, you could go in and fix the bug, but then because you're not running an official Android version you'd lose access to the Play Store and other services. Something's not really free if there's a penalty for doing it. Since freedom to run a modified version of software yourself is one of the four freedoms of free software, this highlights the difference between free software and open source. I'm not saying open source is bad and everyone should prefer free software. It's just a good example of the difference between the two in practice rather than in some debate about licenses and the abstract principles behind them.

icebraining 8y ago
So if I make a proprietary application that only runs on, say, Ubuntu, does that mean GNU/Linux is no longer really free, since you can't replace your distro with Arch without losing access to my application?
- jstanley 8y ago
  If your application is an intrinsic part of pretty much every GNU/Linux system, then yeah, pretty much. It's not GNU/Linux that's not free, but it makes it hard to use a GNU/Linux system that is free.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    Play store is not a requirement. You can use f-droid or something similar and it has most everything you might need.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      I know, and I do. In fact I don't have play services installed at all. Unfortunately most people consider the play store to be a necessity, so its non-free nature is a problem.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > does that mean GNU/Linux is no longer really free I'd say it's a bit of a different situation, since the two are not being designed to work together and aren't even being developed by the same people. If the Ubuntu developers made your proprietary app key to the useful running of the system, which is the more exact analogy, then I'd say yeah, they would have made it non-free.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    What app is key to the useful running of Android and that refuses to run on a modified system?
ikeboy 8y ago
You can run the play store just fine on lineageos, which has modifications and isn't official. https://www.google.com/android/uncertified/ https://www.google.com/android/uncertified/ just need to register here as of earlier this year apparently
- notacoward 8y ago
  Apparently Play Store is unaffected, but some other apps - banking, streaming, even Pokemon Go - will break. And your warranty (including hardware) is voided. So I stand corrected, and thank you, but I don't think the correction affects the main point.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    Those apps are making a conscious decision to exclude phones/roms not certified by Google. That's their choice. Generally hardware warranty will remain if it's purely a hardware issue - you can always flash back anyway. Android is free software in the sense that you can make and distribute modified versions. If app vendors choose to discriminate against those versions that doesn't make it unfree any more than software supporting windows and not Linux makes Linux unfree
    - notacoward 8y ago
      > Android is free software in the sense that you can make and distribute modified versions. I don't think that's enough to make it free software, and "free software in the sense..." is nonsensical. Free software would guarantee the continuance of that freedom. Since that guarantee doesn't exist, Google could place limitations on the Play Store at any time. The fact that they haven't makes the example less clear, but it doesn't make Android free software. Even Google doesn't claim that it is.
      - ikeboy 8y ago
        Play store isn't part of Android. Even if it was only available to specific phones, that wouldn't make Android unfree. Play store isn't open source at all. Amazon was able to take Android and put it on their extremely popular devices with 0 support from Google, no play store. That's what I call freedom
deogeo 8y ago
> I'm not saying open source is bad and everyone should prefer free software. Why not?
- notacoward 8y ago
  Because that debate tends to get very contentious. It's an important debate to have, but I've already been in it many times and watched it even more so I'm not particularly in the mood to go through it this morning.
gcb0 8y ago
there is open source and open source thru google's gates. on the later you submit patches, they will be included in the next 2 to 3 versions of public release (if they dont't add any feature that impacts google's ad bottom line, for example, adding any sort of referrer control to chrome), then you have to hope that in those 2-3 version cycle your device is still supported, now you just have to wait for the convenient over the ait update provided by your telco or phone manufacturer (in most cases you actually need both entities to take part)
- icebraining 8y ago
  That's not Google's gates, that's the OEM's and the ISP's. Google can only control that for their own devices, and the Nexuses have always been some of the most modded ones.
  - gcb0 8y ago
    Google own the merge rigths, and what goes into each version. and their process timings ensure that by the time you patch is out, your device is not getting updates anymore (update timeframe that they set both in contract with oem or via "example" via their nexus series)
    - icebraining 8y ago
      What merge rights? You can build Android yourself and install it directly on your phone, and let others do the same - unless if the OEM's and ISP's gates prevent you.
      - gcb0 8y ago
        unless "your device" is the emulator, there is no way to get hold of drivers or firmware for anything other than lifting them of an blessed rom ... and only if you can get the parity you need with the kernel you are using. there's a very good reason the "supported device list" of all forks is always very, very small (even with the outlandish claims on most of them such as "supported. touch screen and modem still not working" ) just becuase the build steps for your fork project automates some of that driver/kernel lifting, doesn't make it any better.
smileysteve 8y ago
This is a poor example because Play is its own set up apps licensed by Google (paid for by manufacturers) and not core to the os itself.
z3t4 8y ago
Mobile technology moves so fast Android can't keep up with the support of all hardware out there, so you can't simply buy any smartphone and expect everything to work with the latest Android release.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  It's not Android that can't keep up, it's SoC manufacturers that are lazy.

icebraining 8y ago

So if I make a proprietary application that only runs on, say, Ubuntu, does that mean GNU/Linux is no longer really free, since you can't replace your distro with Arch without losing access to my application?

jstanley 8y ago
If your application is an intrinsic part of pretty much every GNU/Linux system, then yeah, pretty much. It's not GNU/Linux that's not free, but it makes it hard to use a GNU/Linux system that is free.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Play store is not a requirement. You can use f-droid or something similar and it has most everything you might need.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    I know, and I do. In fact I don't have play services installed at all. Unfortunately most people consider the play store to be a necessity, so its non-free nature is a problem.
notacoward 8y ago
> does that mean GNU/Linux is no longer really free I'd say it's a bit of a different situation, since the two are not being designed to work together and aren't even being developed by the same people. If the Ubuntu developers made your proprietary app key to the useful running of the system, which is the more exact analogy, then I'd say yeah, they would have made it non-free.
- icebraining 8y ago
  What app is key to the useful running of Android and that refuses to run on a modified system?

ikeboy 8y ago

You can run the play store just fine on lineageos, which has modifications and isn't official. https://www.google.com/android/uncertified/ https://www.google.com/android/uncertified/ just need to register here as of earlier this year apparently

notacoward 8y ago
Apparently Play Store is unaffected, but some other apps - banking, streaming, even Pokemon Go - will break. And your warranty (including hardware) is voided. So I stand corrected, and thank you, but I don't think the correction affects the main point.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  Those apps are making a conscious decision to exclude phones/roms not certified by Google. That's their choice. Generally hardware warranty will remain if it's purely a hardware issue - you can always flash back anyway. Android is free software in the sense that you can make and distribute modified versions. If app vendors choose to discriminate against those versions that doesn't make it unfree any more than software supporting windows and not Linux makes Linux unfree
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > Android is free software in the sense that you can make and distribute modified versions. I don't think that's enough to make it free software, and "free software in the sense..." is nonsensical. Free software would guarantee the continuance of that freedom. Since that guarantee doesn't exist, Google could place limitations on the Play Store at any time. The fact that they haven't makes the example less clear, but it doesn't make Android free software. Even Google doesn't claim that it is.
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      Play store isn't part of Android. Even if it was only available to specific phones, that wouldn't make Android unfree. Play store isn't open source at all. Amazon was able to take Android and put it on their extremely popular devices with 0 support from Google, no play store. That's what I call freedom

deogeo 8y ago

> I'm not saying open source is bad and everyone should prefer free software. Why not?

notacoward 8y ago
Because that debate tends to get very contentious. It's an important debate to have, but I've already been in it many times and watched it even more so I'm not particularly in the mood to go through it this morning.

gcb0 8y ago

there is open source and open source thru google's gates. on the later you submit patches, they will be included in the next 2 to 3 versions of public release (if they dont't add any feature that impacts google's ad bottom line, for example, adding any sort of referrer control to chrome), then you have to hope that in those 2-3 version cycle your device is still supported, now you just have to wait for the convenient over the ait update provided by your telco or phone manufacturer (in most cases you actually need both entities to take part)

icebraining 8y ago
That's not Google's gates, that's the OEM's and the ISP's. Google can only control that for their own devices, and the Nexuses have always been some of the most modded ones.
- gcb0 8y ago
  Google own the merge rigths, and what goes into each version. and their process timings ensure that by the time you patch is out, your device is not getting updates anymore (update timeframe that they set both in contract with oem or via "example" via their nexus series)
  - icebraining 8y ago
    What merge rights? You can build Android yourself and install it directly on your phone, and let others do the same - unless if the OEM's and ISP's gates prevent you.
    - gcb0 8y ago
      unless "your device" is the emulator, there is no way to get hold of drivers or firmware for anything other than lifting them of an blessed rom ... and only if you can get the parity you need with the kernel you are using. there's a very good reason the "supported device list" of all forks is always very, very small (even with the outlandish claims on most of them such as "supported. touch screen and modem still not working" ) just becuase the build steps for your fork project automates some of that driver/kernel lifting, doesn't make it any better.

smileysteve 8y ago

This is a poor example because Play is its own set up apps licensed by Google (paid for by manufacturers) and not core to the os itself.

z3t4 8y ago

Mobile technology moves so fast Android can't keep up with the support of all hardware out there, so you can't simply buy any smartphone and expect everything to work with the latest Android release.

dcbadacd 8y ago
It's not Android that can't keep up, it's SoC manufacturers that are lazy.