4 ms·

Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3. Somethin

Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3. Something like most of Motorola's recent phones with locked down bootloader, those aren't in any meaningful sense running an open source OS. At least not any meaningful sense for the average consumer. For a business with the money to roll their own hardware, they can take advantage of the source, but for me, I can't get that kind of touchscreen hooked up to that kind of battery, CPU, and GPU unless I'm willing to accept a closed OS. Of course the point is moot, since Motorola would never use a GPLv3-licensed Android. I don't really see why, since, as I said, it's not the software but the hardware that I want to pay them for. (Though there's a good chance I would leave the software unmodified.)

kenjackson 16y ago
Why do they have to use GPLv3 to be open source? Apache, BSD, MIT, are no longer open source licenses?
- jpk 16y ago
  The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    But surely for Honeycomb this isn't necessary. If Motorola wants to lock the bootloader then they can do so. This doesn't prevent Samsung or Archos from using the Honeycomb code. It just prevents people from rooting and modifying code that runs on Motorola's device, which is their perogative given that there is no end to HW manufacturers for Android products.
    - cube13 16y ago
      It's necessary if it's GPLv3. The anti-Tivolization clause means that the manufacturer needs to provide the ability for the user to sign their code. From a support point of view, I cannot see any reason why any hardware manufacturer would go along with GPLv3 software. It adds a level of complexity that just doesn't make much sense to deal with, because it's not the manufacturer's best interest to support ANY code, just the code that they have put on the device.
      - lukeschlather 16y ago
        The GPLv3 doesn't require you to support custom builds. It just requires you to let people use them. The code doesn't have to be signed at the hardware level. Heck, all you have to do is replace the splash screen on bootup with a "warning unsigned code detected, this device may have been compromised." And as far as supporting any code, most manufacturers of processors do in fact support running any code you like on them. Especially the dominant Intel-compatible personal computer, where Apple themselves support running any operating system you like.
  - icarus_drowning 16y ago
    Specifically speaking about Motorola, I find it baffling that they have lead the charge on the "lock down Android" front. I'm typing this with an original Droid sitting next to me. I haven't loaded a custom ROM onto the phone, but I could. And that's why I bought it. When it was time for my wife to buy a new phone, we didn't buy the Droid X in part because of what I had read about Motorola's increasingly locked-down stance. I've seen a few stories as of late that say that "Android saved Motorola". I don't think that's necessarily true. "Openness" saved Motorola. And now they are abandoning it. I'm really not sure why.
mturmon 16y ago
Here's Andy Rubin's well-known definition of open: https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 This ("access to source code") is clearly less than GPL, and that's OK, as other commenters point out. But what they're offering now with Honeycomb is less than Rubin's definition above.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  I want the ability to run an arbitrary operating system on hardware that has as effective production and quality control as Motorola's hardware, with the same form-factors. If I can't get that sort of hardware without a locked bootloader for something resembling the same price as Motorola's line, the openness of the code is basically meaningless to me.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
billmcneale 16y ago
> Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3. Maybe, but then it would have failed in the market place.

kenjackson 16y ago

Why do they have to use GPLv3 to be open source? Apache, BSD, MIT, are no longer open source licenses?

jpk 16y ago
The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But surely for Honeycomb this isn't necessary. If Motorola wants to lock the bootloader then they can do so. This doesn't prevent Samsung or Archos from using the Honeycomb code. It just prevents people from rooting and modifying code that runs on Motorola's device, which is their perogative given that there is no end to HW manufacturers for Android products.
  - cube13 16y ago
    It's necessary if it's GPLv3. The anti-Tivolization clause means that the manufacturer needs to provide the ability for the user to sign their code. From a support point of view, I cannot see any reason why any hardware manufacturer would go along with GPLv3 software. It adds a level of complexity that just doesn't make much sense to deal with, because it's not the manufacturer's best interest to support ANY code, just the code that they have put on the device.
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      The GPLv3 doesn't require you to support custom builds. It just requires you to let people use them. The code doesn't have to be signed at the hardware level. Heck, all you have to do is replace the splash screen on bootup with a "warning unsigned code detected, this device may have been compromised." And as far as supporting any code, most manufacturers of processors do in fact support running any code you like on them. Especially the dominant Intel-compatible personal computer, where Apple themselves support running any operating system you like.
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  Specifically speaking about Motorola, I find it baffling that they have lead the charge on the "lock down Android" front. I'm typing this with an original Droid sitting next to me. I haven't loaded a custom ROM onto the phone, but I could. And that's why I bought it. When it was time for my wife to buy a new phone, we didn't buy the Droid X in part because of what I had read about Motorola's increasingly locked-down stance. I've seen a few stories as of late that say that "Android saved Motorola". I don't think that's necessarily true. "Openness" saved Motorola. And now they are abandoning it. I'm really not sure why.

mturmon 16y ago

Here's Andy Rubin's well-known definition of open: https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 This ("access to source code") is clearly less than GPL, and that's OK, as other commenters point out. But what they're offering now with Honeycomb is less than Rubin's definition above.

lukeschlather 16y ago
I want the ability to run an arbitrary operating system on hardware that has as effective production and quality control as Motorola's hardware, with the same form-factors. If I can't get that sort of hardware without a locked bootloader for something resembling the same price as Motorola's line, the openness of the code is basically meaningless to me.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

billmcneale 16y ago

> Android has never been that open. If Google was committed to a truly open source mobile operating system, they would have released it under the GPLv3. Maybe, but then it would have failed in the market place.