5 ms·

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/

by 0x12 15y ago

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre..., the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for some reason): - "Google's Andy Rubin put up a proof that Android was open, then subsequent releases of android were put out in a way that this proof no longer held, so by googles own definition android is currently not an open platform" - "Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple." - "Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom." - "The phone network firmware comes pre-installed. If all it did was sit there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook pre-installed firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit. Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented. On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network." Take issue with what the man said, not with the man. My personal take on all this is that if you base your offering on a huge amount of open source that you should keep the spirit of those whose code enables you to run your business alive and respond in kind.

enjo 15y ago
The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and related bug-fixes. It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete". It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were pushing out terrible experiences on tablets using older Android versions. Honeycomb is merely a stop-gap to the next version (the upcoming ice-cream sandwich). Google has been resistant to release the source precisely because I think they want to control (as much as possible) the proliferation of that code into devices that it can manage the bug fixing and release constraints on. That's why basically Google partners are the only ones with access to Honeycomb. If the new version is released and the source code isn't, then I think RMS has a point. Ice cream sandwich better be "complete" and see a commiserate source-code push to go along with it. If not, Android has lost it's open source credibility. I think it is too early to make that call, however. *disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge or any way to verify that my speculation is accurate:)
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0 nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence here, maintaining the appearances of OSS while not actually providing a development trunk. Google may claim openness in the face of this, but open without source is closed. You can't claim to be FOSS while only releasing bins.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.
    - gnaffle 15y ago
      They could have been, though, if the source code had been released. :)
      - Tichy 15y ago
        And I could have been a millionaire.
        ashishgandhi 15y ago
        I can't say anything about that but I would bet my money on gnaffle's point.
        Tichy 15y ago
        It's very difficult to not have the opportunity to become a millionaire. For example I could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. But I didn't. Likewise, Google hasn't published the Honeycomb source yet. Also, it is strictly logic, you can follow everything from a false statement (false => anything). So, if Google had released the source for Honeycomb I could have been a millionaire is a strictly true statement.
bad_user 15y ago
Normally I take issue with people claiming that Android is not open. However, Google disappointed me with their 3.0 release. I understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices, and I understand that it is their work and that they should get at least some control over it -- but they are taking way too long to release the 3.x version. I also understand the need for a closed development model, but when you've got "partners" that have access to source-code, and you do not; well, that's not a free ecosystem that enables real competition. Android is also based on Linux, and on Eclipse, and on Apache Harmony, and on other open-source software without which Android wouldn't be what it is today, and without which they wouldn't have been so fast to market and possibly losing the critical window that they had. Android's appeal is precisely its openness -- no mobile maker would have jumped on board with another Windows-wannabe without getting paid for it. Hopefully Google doesn't forget that.
- barista 15y ago
  I don't get this. Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation where people contribute and together they make software. Google has all the right to hold the code back and only share it with the partners that adhere to its demands and use their services so that the development is paid for. Of course its another thing that doing all this they come out looking like a hypocrite preaching things like open and do no evil while practicing the exact opposite. But hey...
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Googgle claims Android is open. They don't get headwind because they don't have these rights, they get headwind because they claim one thing but do another.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation ... Everybody knows that and really, it's not worth repeating it because that's no excuse for acting hypocritical. Google said Android is and will be open-source. Google said that it wants to foster an open ecosystem. If Google makes money off Android, that's precisely because of those promises and companies should really be held accountable when breaking promises, just like real people. As I already said, Android would be nothing if it were just another proprietary Windows-wannabe. If some friend steals from you, will you still consider him a friend, even though he stole from you to feed his children? Wouldn't it have been easier just asking for money, instead of stealing / lying about it? If people don't get away with it, why should companies?
xiaoqinmjj 15y ago
welcometo: http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30 ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com =====
cube13 15y ago
This statement confuses me: >On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network There are a few things that I find odd about this argument: 1. Phone network firmware is supposed to control the hardware. That's it's purpose. It's supposed to be able to turn the microphone on and off. On CDMA networks like Verizon, it should stop the user from attempting to access data when they're making a call. It should be able to be updated when the carrier makes changes to the underlying protocol(s). I don't see how this is "malicious" use, especially if it's a technological restriction on the carrier. 2. Also, Stallman seems to be attacking the OTA update capability, which one of the main features of the Android OS. I can understand why he's ideologically opposed to it, but as a practical matter, it's a great feature of the OS. Plus, this is only done at the user's request.
- ajross 15y ago
  I don't see how your points are responsive. The fact that it's "on purpose" (of course it's on purpose!) doesn't changes RMS's argument that it's unethical and abusable. Your examples aren't "malicious", but it seems awfully naive to believe these are the only applications of that technology. And I don't think Stallman has anything against network-delivered software. He's been doing that for years. The complaint I read was about the ability of the carrier to install things without user authorization, and to use authorization to remove/modify existing features in a way that cannot be recovered. Both of those have happened in the wild.
  - cube13 15y ago
    The main issue that I have with this specific issue that RMS is making an ideological argument that I don't feel is realistic. He states the following: >Putting these points together, we can tolerate non-free phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. The problem here is that the phone component needs to be able to override the rest of the OS to receive a call. To suggest otherwise is a pretty huge potential privacy issue... would you want every application to have access to the phone firmware? In addition, the phone firmware exists to make the phone actually work with a specific carrier. So it needs to have control of the microphone, the speakers, and the radio in order to function. That requirement exists in both a closed implementation, and a FOSS implementation. Therefore, a FOSS firmware implementation still has the exact same potential issues that RMS raised-complete control of the hardware, the ability to restrict the user from doing certain actions, the potential of using the device to spy on people through well obfuscated(or buggy) code, etc. Some of the more malicious uses are mitigated by a FOSS implementation, I will agree. However, I don't think that RMS has a solution that actually solves any of the issues that he raised.
joebadmo 15y ago
Google's openness is a pretty complex issue.[0] If you define 'open' as binary, and only true if every item in a certain list is met, then it's almost certainly true that Android is not open. But I don't think that's a particularly illuminating way to describe the situation. I think it's fair to say that so far, the smartphone side of Android, up to and including Gingerbread, has been open in the way that Andy Rubin described in his tweet. The tablet side, Honeycomb, has not. You can take this as evidence that Google nefariously pulled a bait-and-switch and unconscientiously uses principles like 'open' only when it suits them financially. Or you can give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their explanation that the source code for Honeycomb wasn't ready for public consumption, and they had to make a pragmatic decision in the interest of maintaining their platform. Besides that issue, it seems to me that RMS's gripes are largely to do not with Android but with the entire phone industry, and most of every other electronics industry. It doesn't seem like a criticism of Android or Google as such. Like he said, Android brings smartphones closer to his dream than we've ever seen. It's really up to the parts that Google has little control over now. "My personal take on all this is that if you base your offering on a huge amount of open source that you should keep the spirit of those whose code enables you to run your business alive and respond in kind." I agree, and it seems to me that Google has mostly fulfilled its obligations. [0]: I wrote a whole blog post on it: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-and-closed-fist http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-...

by 0x12 15y ago

enjo 15y ago

The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and related bug-fixes. It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete". It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were pushing out terrible experiences on tablets using older Android versions. Honeycomb is merely a stop-gap to the next version (the upcoming ice-cream sandwich). Google has been resistant to release the source precisely because I think they want to control (as much as possible) the proliferation of that code into devices that it can manage the bug fixing and release constraints on. That's why basically Google partners are the only ones with access to Honeycomb. If the new version is released and the source code isn't, then I think RMS has a point. Ice cream sandwich better be "complete" and see a commiserate source-code push to go along with it. If not, Android has lost it's open source credibility. I think it is too early to make that call, however. *disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge or any way to verify that my speculation is accurate:)

redthrowaway 15y ago
RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0 nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence here, maintaining the appearances of OSS while not actually providing a development trunk. Google may claim openness in the face of this, but open without source is closed. You can't claim to be FOSS while only releasing bins.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.
  - gnaffle 15y ago
    They could have been, though, if the source code had been released. :)
    - Tichy 15y ago
      And I could have been a millionaire.
      - ashishgandhi 15y ago
        I can't say anything about that but I would bet my money on gnaffle's point.
        Tichy 15y ago
        It's very difficult to not have the opportunity to become a millionaire. For example I could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. But I didn't. Likewise, Google hasn't published the Honeycomb source yet. Also, it is strictly logic, you can follow everything from a false statement (false => anything). So, if Google had released the source for Honeycomb I could have been a millionaire is a strictly true statement.

bad_user 15y ago

Normally I take issue with people claiming that Android is not open. However, Google disappointed me with their 3.0 release. I understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices, and I understand that it is their work and that they should get at least some control over it -- but they are taking way too long to release the 3.x version. I also understand the need for a closed development model, but when you've got "partners" that have access to source-code, and you do not; well, that's not a free ecosystem that enables real competition. Android is also based on Linux, and on Eclipse, and on Apache Harmony, and on other open-source software without which Android wouldn't be what it is today, and without which they wouldn't have been so fast to market and possibly losing the critical window that they had. Android's appeal is precisely its openness -- no mobile maker would have jumped on board with another Windows-wannabe without getting paid for it. Hopefully Google doesn't forget that.

barista 15y ago
I don't get this. Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation where people contribute and together they make software. Google has all the right to hold the code back and only share it with the partners that adhere to its demands and use their services so that the development is paid for. Of course its another thing that doing all this they come out looking like a hypocrite preaching things like open and do no evil while practicing the exact opposite. But hey...
- 0x12 15y ago
  Googgle claims Android is open. They don't get headwind because they don't have these rights, they get headwind because they claim one thing but do another.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation ... Everybody knows that and really, it's not worth repeating it because that's no excuse for acting hypocritical. Google said Android is and will be open-source. Google said that it wants to foster an open ecosystem. If Google makes money off Android, that's precisely because of those promises and companies should really be held accountable when breaking promises, just like real people. As I already said, Android would be nothing if it were just another proprietary Windows-wannabe. If some friend steals from you, will you still consider him a friend, even though he stole from you to feed his children? Wouldn't it have been easier just asking for money, instead of stealing / lying about it? If people don't get away with it, why should companies?

xiaoqinmjj 15y ago

welcometo: http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30 ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com =====

cube13 15y ago

This statement confuses me: >On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network There are a few things that I find odd about this argument: 1. Phone network firmware is supposed to control the hardware. That's it's purpose. It's supposed to be able to turn the microphone on and off. On CDMA networks like Verizon, it should stop the user from attempting to access data when they're making a call. It should be able to be updated when the carrier makes changes to the underlying protocol(s). I don't see how this is "malicious" use, especially if it's a technological restriction on the carrier. 2. Also, Stallman seems to be attacking the OTA update capability, which one of the main features of the Android OS. I can understand why he's ideologically opposed to it, but as a practical matter, it's a great feature of the OS. Plus, this is only done at the user's request.

ajross 15y ago
I don't see how your points are responsive. The fact that it's "on purpose" (of course it's on purpose!) doesn't changes RMS's argument that it's unethical and abusable. Your examples aren't "malicious", but it seems awfully naive to believe these are the only applications of that technology. And I don't think Stallman has anything against network-delivered software. He's been doing that for years. The complaint I read was about the ability of the carrier to install things without user authorization, and to use authorization to remove/modify existing features in a way that cannot be recovered. Both of those have happened in the wild.
- cube13 15y ago
  The main issue that I have with this specific issue that RMS is making an ideological argument that I don't feel is realistic. He states the following: >Putting these points together, we can tolerate non-free phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. The problem here is that the phone component needs to be able to override the rest of the OS to receive a call. To suggest otherwise is a pretty huge potential privacy issue... would you want every application to have access to the phone firmware? In addition, the phone firmware exists to make the phone actually work with a specific carrier. So it needs to have control of the microphone, the speakers, and the radio in order to function. That requirement exists in both a closed implementation, and a FOSS implementation. Therefore, a FOSS firmware implementation still has the exact same potential issues that RMS raised-complete control of the hardware, the ability to restrict the user from doing certain actions, the potential of using the device to spy on people through well obfuscated(or buggy) code, etc. Some of the more malicious uses are mitigated by a FOSS implementation, I will agree. However, I don't think that RMS has a solution that actually solves any of the issues that he raised.

joebadmo 15y ago

Google's openness is a pretty complex issue.[0] If you define 'open' as binary, and only true if every item in a certain list is met, then it's almost certainly true that Android is not open. But I don't think that's a particularly illuminating way to describe the situation. I think it's fair to say that so far, the smartphone side of Android, up to and including Gingerbread, has been open in the way that Andy Rubin described in his tweet. The tablet side, Honeycomb, has not. You can take this as evidence that Google nefariously pulled a bait-and-switch and unconscientiously uses principles like 'open' only when it suits them financially. Or you can give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their explanation that the source code for Honeycomb wasn't ready for public consumption, and they had to make a pragmatic decision in the interest of maintaining their platform. Besides that issue, it seems to me that RMS's gripes are largely to do not with Android but with the entire phone industry, and most of every other electronics industry. It doesn't seem like a criticism of Android or Google as such. Like he said, Android brings smartphones closer to his dream than we've ever seen. It's really up to the parts that Google has little control over now. "My personal take on all this is that if you base your offering on a huge amount of open source that you should keep the spirit of those whose code enables you to run your business alive and respond in kind." I agree, and it seems to me that Google has mostly fulfilled its obligations. [0]: I wrote a whole blog post on it: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-and-closed-fist http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-...