12 ms·

It could be, if all FOSS developers slapped a new license on their projects saying "not for Android/iOS".

john01dav 1y ago
This would make it no longer free software as per the FSF's definition. We could turn many more things into GPLv3, which would prevent this, however. Then, Android and iOS can use them if and only if they go under GPLv3 too, which includes provisions against bootloader locking.
- amelius 1y ago
  I think we need something in between. Permissive for individuals and small companies, but restrictive for mega corporations who impose their will on the populace.
  - beanjuiceII 1y ago
    sounds like corporations would no longer have a need to open source anything
    - amelius 1y ago
      It can go two ways. Either corporations work with their users, or they work against them.
  - john01dav 1y ago
    The closest that I know of to this is GPLv3 with sold proprietary licenses. Then, when selling proprietary licenses, you can adjust the price to what you think that the customer can afford. There's debate on how ethical such adjustment is, and many companies (recently Slack and often Cloudflare) are criticized for it.
    - amelius 1y ago
      You can certainly say it is ethical depending on your political views. Large companies have many things working in their favor, and they even use that power to the disadvantage of less fortunate groups of people (or people who made different life choices). Anyway, "it is my FOSS project so I can charge people whatever I want." sounds reasonable.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  Actually, how does that work? In my non-lawyer understanding, GPLv3 already says the end user must be allowed to actually run the code, to the point where the iOS app store can't have GPLv3 apps in it. So... does this change mean that GPLv3 apps can't legally be shipped for Android?
  - gowld 1y ago
    You can sideload apps onto your Android device using a developer setup, which is the setup that anyone building free software would use.
- kmeisthax 1y ago
  [dead]
- pabs3 1y ago
  GPLv2 requires allowing reinstallation of modified versions too: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
The bigger factor is whether or not Linux phones that are reasonably nice to use (everything works, isn’t flaky, battery life is decent-ish) come to market or not. Developers aren’t going to be interested in a platform that for practical purposes is at best a curiosity or something to tinker with, no matter how many idealist checkboxes they tick. Good North America market availability sure would help too. There’s been stuff like Sailfish that seemed interesting in the past but didn’t have easily purchasable devices available in the US, completely precluding development for the platform for a significant number of devs.
SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
Usage restrictions are not allowed to be considered an OSI-approved Open-Source license. Plenty of people think that the OSI "Open Source Definition" is the only valid definition of "open source", and will thus reject calling such licenses "open source".

This would make it no longer free software as per the FSF's definition. We could turn many more things into GPLv3, which would prevent this, however. Then, Android and iOS can use them if and only if they go under GPLv3 too, which includes provisions against bootloader locking.

amelius 1y ago
I think we need something in between. Permissive for individuals and small companies, but restrictive for mega corporations who impose their will on the populace.
- beanjuiceII 1y ago
  sounds like corporations would no longer have a need to open source anything
  - amelius 1y ago
    It can go two ways. Either corporations work with their users, or they work against them.
- john01dav 1y ago
  The closest that I know of to this is GPLv3 with sold proprietary licenses. Then, when selling proprietary licenses, you can adjust the price to what you think that the customer can afford. There's debate on how ethical such adjustment is, and many companies (recently Slack and often Cloudflare) are criticized for it.
  - amelius 1y ago
    You can certainly say it is ethical depending on your political views. Large companies have many things working in their favor, and they even use that power to the disadvantage of less fortunate groups of people (or people who made different life choices). Anyway, "it is my FOSS project so I can charge people whatever I want." sounds reasonable.
yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
Actually, how does that work? In my non-lawyer understanding, GPLv3 already says the end user must be allowed to actually run the code, to the point where the iOS app store can't have GPLv3 apps in it. So... does this change mean that GPLv3 apps can't legally be shipped for Android?
- gowld 1y ago
  You can sideload apps onto your Android device using a developer setup, which is the setup that anyone building free software would use.
kmeisthax 1y ago
[dead]
pabs3 1y ago
GPLv2 requires allowing reinstallation of modified versions too: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

The bigger factor is whether or not Linux phones that are reasonably nice to use (everything works, isn’t flaky, battery life is decent-ish) come to market or not. Developers aren’t going to be interested in a platform that for practical purposes is at best a curiosity or something to tinker with, no matter how many idealist checkboxes they tick. Good North America market availability sure would help too. There’s been stuff like Sailfish that seemed interesting in the past but didn’t have easily purchasable devices available in the US, completely precluding development for the platform for a significant number of devs.

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago

Usage restrictions are not allowed to be considered an OSI-approved Open-Source license. Plenty of people think that the OSI "Open Source Definition" is the only valid definition of "open source", and will thus reject calling such licenses "open source".