7 ms·

Will Ubuntu Edge commit to using only free software?

36 points by ge0rg 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago
With regards to the term free software, the definition is opaque to most people, however it's likely construed as such: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Furthermore, Mark Shuttleworth is doing an AMA on reddit right now and someone asked about binary blob drivers (rather than full-source drivers), and this was his response: > There may be blobs in the first generation device. The way to a blob-free future is to show demand from folks who care about that, not to be ideological about it. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shuttleworth_founder_of_ubuntu/cba1v6a http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut... Suffice to say that the Edge's OS will not be composed of only free software.
- unknownian 13y ago
  On Hacker News, most people know what Free Software is, but thank you for the AMA tidbit.
  - publicfig 13y ago
    That doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. Just because you think most people will know something doesn't mean that's true, and I feel as though it's incredibly relevant to bring it up along side this discussion.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Personally I had an idea of what it was, but it wasn't until yesterday that I was linked to gnu.org and read some of their pages. I'm sure most people on HN have an idea of what Free Software(TM) entails, but not actual quantifiable terms. Again, this is a personal opinion and I'm trying hard to avoid making inaccurate broad-sweeping and baseless generalizations.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Ironically, android engineers who were ideological about it have spent a lot of time making open non-blob drivers for various pieces of phones over the years before various AOSP releases.
- superuser2 13y ago
  "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is incompatible with the security and proper functioning of the cellular RF spectrum. Other people want to use the airwaves, too. In fact some people have come to rely on the availability of voice calls such that it would be a Very Bad Thing if an amateur's typo took out voice and data for several city blocks. Also the carriers will never in a million years authorize people to transmit as they wish on cellular networks. The radio firmware, at the very least, has to be closed source.
  - unsignedint 13y ago
    Adding to this that there's a bit of regulatory implication of open sourced cellular RF stack as well. Essentially, whenever you connect to a cellular network, you are not a "licensee" of the "station" rather, mobile carriers are. (Basically you are the remote controlled station -- as mobile carrier is a control operator for your RF interface) So like you said, radio firmware and opensource doesn't mix...
mdwrigh2 13y ago
> Will Ubuntu Edge commit to using only free software? If the project succeeds and has $32 million available to spend, this is surely possible, but there is no indication in any of the promotional materials that this is part of the plan. I think John Sullivan is grossly underestimating how much it costs to develop a phone, let alone one that is totally open. Convincing companies to completely open source their drivers requires tons of effort, and there has to be a benefit to the vendor beyond just what you believe to be "right". In some cases that benefit is money, or purchases ("we'll only use your product if..."), but I don't think this fundraiser has near enough leverage via either of those means to both build a high quality device and manage to make it totally free.
- mrmekon 13y ago
  Agreed. Hardware costs a ludicrous amount of money to design. It costs a ludicrous mount of money for each prototype run, of which there will be several. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to have PCBs fabbed. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to design a nice case that everything fits into and that doesn't destroy the radio signal. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to hire RF engineers for anything. It costs an above-average amount of money (for HN) to develop software and firmware for hardware. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to package for consumers, to store, and to ship. It cost a ludicrous amount of money to convince stores to carry your product. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to support the product and the customer after it has shipped to market. I would be shocked if $32 million covered the development and first run of product (assuming first run >100,000 units).
wmf 13y ago
Will Ubuntu Edge commit to shipping a non-working brick? There's no way free drivers could be developed within their schedule and budget.
- mrmekon 13y ago
  Many IC manufacturers treat their "API" (hardware registers) as proprietary IP, require an NDA from the driver developers before releasing the development guide, and require an agreement not to publish the driver. I'm mostly referring to the smaller support chips here. Things like I2C->I2S bridges and ADCs and other crummy little parts that every board needs, and that need small drivers. The big ones, though, would be WiFi, Bluetooth, and cell radio chips. They can be very strict. Even if Ubuntu had the time and money, they might not have the rights.
  - wmf 13y ago
    You can solve anything with money, but Canonical doesn't have enough.
anoncow 13y ago
The donation page for Replicant is here https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=19 https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1... Replicant webpage http://replicant.us/ http://replicant.us/ Download page http://replicant.us/download/ http://replicant.us/download/
- pekk 13y ago
  Replicant isn't doing the same thing as Ubuntu Edge at all. Is this just a place to promote any project now?
  - anoncow 13y ago
    The parent article mentions replicant. Replicant and edge, both are good ventures.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 13y ago
Ubuntu has said that the entire $32 million would be spent on the hardware, not the software.
fingerprinter 13y ago
I'll never understand the stance that the FSF takes in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, Ubuntu might ship with some binary blobs. You know why? Because Ubuntu is trying to go mainstream, do something other free desktops/phones have not been able to do. There is a HUGE benefit to open source and Linux if Ubuntu succeeds. But the FSF doesn't see it that way. It seems the FSF would rather see Ubuntu fail rather than succeed on non-FSF terms. Mind boggling. If Ubuntu succeeds and is 99% open and 1% closed, is that not better than Apples/MS 1% open and 99% closed? If/when Ubuntu succeeds, the next generation can work at that last 1%. A reasonable, pragmatic and realistic approach is better than DOA.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  It's funny. Android essentially took the brunt of being raked over the coals by everyone in the open source community for calling itself open source when it had closed firmware/etc. (yes there are other issues, i'm referring specifically to having closed blobs for some firmware) Now it seems to be more acceptable.
- vb33 13y ago
  I am failing to see the advantage to open source if Ubuntu succeeds. It will just be another Android, but with an uglier UI. Canonical contribute virtually no useful code back to the wider community. Their own projects are difficult to consume (if they're not already poorly duplicating functionality). Unlocking all functionality of a device is extremely difficult while binary blobs are shipped, something I would have thought appealed to _hackers_.
  - zanny 13y ago
    Hey, ufw is a nice iptables front end that is portable, and by Canonical. Besides that I got nothin'.
  - fingerprinter 13y ago
    Can't tell if trolling or .... (5 minute old account). Code is great. Know what else is great? Relevance. Ubuntu brought that to Linux desktops via audience. Ubuntu made some projects not toil in obscurity. Ubuntu has given life to many an open source project. If Ubuntu succeeds in either the desktop or phone, all the underlying technology that Ubuntu is built on will get a huge boost. It's that simple.
grey-area 13y ago
No. Next? Oh, all the other questions are equally rhetorical? I think we can safely answer no to them as well, since Canonical is emphatically not the FSF and doesn't share many of its goals. It aims to be commercially viable and yet as open as possible, which precludes being fundamentalist. I'm not really interested in Android or replicant (the real reason for this press release it seems), and am really keen to see what canonical come up with in this space. It's high time we saw some innovation in hardware and phone software again, as we've settled into a comfortable duopoly.
harel 13y ago
What's with this obsession the FSF has with 'free' software? Canonical is ultimately a business and without making money that business will eventually have to close. Will the FSF hire those developers when that happens? The benefit of having such a business behind a free OS is too great to fuss about what component of that OS or device is free. That approach is baffling. Who cares if a device driver on my phone is open for me to tinker with? I understand that they take the extreme side very seriously but it feels like they are taking the extreme side for the sake of being extreme. A little pragmatism never hurt anyone.
Shorel 13y ago
Well we can have a Hurd Phone instead, if you go and finish it.

36 points by ge0rg 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago

With regards to the term free software, the definition is opaque to most people, however it's likely construed as such: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Furthermore, Mark Shuttleworth is doing an AMA on reddit right now and someone asked about binary blob drivers (rather than full-source drivers), and this was his response: > There may be blobs in the first generation device. The way to a blob-free future is to show demand from folks who care about that, not to be ideological about it. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shuttleworth_founder_of_ubuntu/cba1v6a http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut... Suffice to say that the Edge's OS will not be composed of only free software.

unknownian 13y ago
On Hacker News, most people know what Free Software is, but thank you for the AMA tidbit.
- publicfig 13y ago
  That doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. Just because you think most people will know something doesn't mean that's true, and I feel as though it's incredibly relevant to bring it up along side this discussion.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Personally I had an idea of what it was, but it wasn't until yesterday that I was linked to gnu.org and read some of their pages. I'm sure most people on HN have an idea of what Free Software(TM) entails, but not actual quantifiable terms. Again, this is a personal opinion and I'm trying hard to avoid making inaccurate broad-sweeping and baseless generalizations.
DannyBee 13y ago
Ironically, android engineers who were ideological about it have spent a lot of time making open non-blob drivers for various pieces of phones over the years before various AOSP releases.
superuser2 13y ago
"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is incompatible with the security and proper functioning of the cellular RF spectrum. Other people want to use the airwaves, too. In fact some people have come to rely on the availability of voice calls such that it would be a Very Bad Thing if an amateur's typo took out voice and data for several city blocks. Also the carriers will never in a million years authorize people to transmit as they wish on cellular networks. The radio firmware, at the very least, has to be closed source.
- unsignedint 13y ago
  Adding to this that there's a bit of regulatory implication of open sourced cellular RF stack as well. Essentially, whenever you connect to a cellular network, you are not a "licensee" of the "station" rather, mobile carriers are. (Basically you are the remote controlled station -- as mobile carrier is a control operator for your RF interface) So like you said, radio firmware and opensource doesn't mix...

mdwrigh2 13y ago

> Will Ubuntu Edge commit to using only free software? If the project succeeds and has $32 million available to spend, this is surely possible, but there is no indication in any of the promotional materials that this is part of the plan. I think John Sullivan is grossly underestimating how much it costs to develop a phone, let alone one that is totally open. Convincing companies to completely open source their drivers requires tons of effort, and there has to be a benefit to the vendor beyond just what you believe to be "right". In some cases that benefit is money, or purchases ("we'll only use your product if..."), but I don't think this fundraiser has near enough leverage via either of those means to both build a high quality device and manage to make it totally free.

mrmekon 13y ago
Agreed. Hardware costs a ludicrous amount of money to design. It costs a ludicrous mount of money for each prototype run, of which there will be several. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to have PCBs fabbed. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to design a nice case that everything fits into and that doesn't destroy the radio signal. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to hire RF engineers for anything. It costs an above-average amount of money (for HN) to develop software and firmware for hardware. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to package for consumers, to store, and to ship. It cost a ludicrous amount of money to convince stores to carry your product. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to support the product and the customer after it has shipped to market. I would be shocked if $32 million covered the development and first run of product (assuming first run >100,000 units).

wmf 13y ago

Will Ubuntu Edge commit to shipping a non-working brick? There's no way free drivers could be developed within their schedule and budget.

mrmekon 13y ago
Many IC manufacturers treat their "API" (hardware registers) as proprietary IP, require an NDA from the driver developers before releasing the development guide, and require an agreement not to publish the driver. I'm mostly referring to the smaller support chips here. Things like I2C->I2S bridges and ADCs and other crummy little parts that every board needs, and that need small drivers. The big ones, though, would be WiFi, Bluetooth, and cell radio chips. They can be very strict. Even if Ubuntu had the time and money, they might not have the rights.
- wmf 13y ago
  You can solve anything with money, but Canonical doesn't have enough.

anoncow 13y ago

The donation page for Replicant is here https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=19 https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1... Replicant webpage http://replicant.us/ http://replicant.us/ Download page http://replicant.us/download/ http://replicant.us/download/

pekk 13y ago
Replicant isn't doing the same thing as Ubuntu Edge at all. Is this just a place to promote any project now?
- anoncow 13y ago
  The parent article mentions replicant. Replicant and edge, both are good ventures.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bryanlarsen 13y ago

Ubuntu has said that the entire $32 million would be spent on the hardware, not the software.

fingerprinter 13y ago

I'll never understand the stance that the FSF takes in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, Ubuntu might ship with some binary blobs. You know why? Because Ubuntu is trying to go mainstream, do something other free desktops/phones have not been able to do. There is a HUGE benefit to open source and Linux if Ubuntu succeeds. But the FSF doesn't see it that way. It seems the FSF would rather see Ubuntu fail rather than succeed on non-FSF terms. Mind boggling. If Ubuntu succeeds and is 99% open and 1% closed, is that not better than Apples/MS 1% open and 99% closed? If/when Ubuntu succeeds, the next generation can work at that last 1%. A reasonable, pragmatic and realistic approach is better than DOA.

DannyBee 13y ago
It's funny. Android essentially took the brunt of being raked over the coals by everyone in the open source community for calling itself open source when it had closed firmware/etc. (yes there are other issues, i'm referring specifically to having closed blobs for some firmware) Now it seems to be more acceptable.
vb33 13y ago
I am failing to see the advantage to open source if Ubuntu succeeds. It will just be another Android, but with an uglier UI. Canonical contribute virtually no useful code back to the wider community. Their own projects are difficult to consume (if they're not already poorly duplicating functionality). Unlocking all functionality of a device is extremely difficult while binary blobs are shipped, something I would have thought appealed to _hackers_.
- zanny 13y ago
  Hey, ufw is a nice iptables front end that is portable, and by Canonical. Besides that I got nothin'.
- fingerprinter 13y ago
  Can't tell if trolling or .... (5 minute old account). Code is great. Know what else is great? Relevance. Ubuntu brought that to Linux desktops via audience. Ubuntu made some projects not toil in obscurity. Ubuntu has given life to many an open source project. If Ubuntu succeeds in either the desktop or phone, all the underlying technology that Ubuntu is built on will get a huge boost. It's that simple.

grey-area 13y ago

No. Next? Oh, all the other questions are equally rhetorical? I think we can safely answer no to them as well, since Canonical is emphatically not the FSF and doesn't share many of its goals. It aims to be commercially viable and yet as open as possible, which precludes being fundamentalist. I'm not really interested in Android or replicant (the real reason for this press release it seems), and am really keen to see what canonical come up with in this space. It's high time we saw some innovation in hardware and phone software again, as we've settled into a comfortable duopoly.

harel 13y ago

What's with this obsession the FSF has with 'free' software? Canonical is ultimately a business and without making money that business will eventually have to close. Will the FSF hire those developers when that happens? The benefit of having such a business behind a free OS is too great to fuss about what component of that OS or device is free. That approach is baffling. Who cares if a device driver on my phone is open for me to tinker with? I understand that they take the extreme side very seriously but it feels like they are taking the extreme side for the sake of being extreme. A little pragmatism never hurt anyone.

Shorel 13y ago

Well we can have a Hurd Phone instead, if you go and finish it.