4 ms·

The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.

by jpk 16y ago

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.

The GPLv3 has provisions specifically for preventing the locked bootloader deal seen on most phones today.

by 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.