8 ms·

The Quest to Build a Truly Free Version of Android

250 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

c3kwue 13y ago
Unfortunately Replicant does not run on my phone. When time comes to purchase a new one, I will probably get a compatible one. Most of the apps I use already come from the F-Droid repository https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/ https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/ as there is a lot of fantastic software available there. I don't like it when threads end up as list of lists but some recommendations that might not be well known: Aard is a offline wiki(pedia and others) reader. AFWall+ is a firewall to give/revoke internet access to apps. It is a fork of DroidWall which went inactive. Document Viewer is the best PDF reader I know and it's free software, hooray. It can automatically cut off white margins, you can set your own touch controls etc. Gibberbot is a great XMPP client. I tested many but this one did not randomly stop receiving messages like all the others did. GnuCash for keeping track of finances. Mirakel is a Todo app which I switched from Astrid to. Astrid is free software too but relies on several non-free libraries from what I know. Mirakel seems more concerned with privacy. OsmAnd for offline maps. And of course you can get APG, AdAway, ConnectBot, FBReader, K-9 Mail, ScummVM, Terminal Emulator etc. from F-Droid.
- kriro 13y ago
  With the Nexus 5 out, the 4 might drop in price and make for a good "play with Ubuntu phone" phone :) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Install https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Install
  - Create 13y ago
    Really BAD: has too much proprietary things and the hardware is bad for freedom: modem transport is over HSIC (high speed USB), but it controls the GPS (included in the modem chip), audio and perhaps NAND too http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/TargetsEvaluation http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/TargetsE...
    - happycube 13y ago
      Looks like you want a Galaxy Nexus or a Samsung SOC S1-S3.
- ersii 13y ago
  Just out of curiosity, what is your current unsupported device?
  - c3kwue 13y ago
    HTC Desire (which is very similar to the Nexus One). Just writing this reminded me that I really like HTC Sense and would probably miss that the most.
AndrewDucker 13y ago
One of the things I love about Android is that you _can_ do this with it, if you so wish. You can't build a Truly Free Version of Windows Phone. You can't build a Truly Free Version of iPhone. But if Android doesn't do what you want, then you can fork it, tweak it, and turn it into something that does!
- brudgers 13y ago
  I agree so long as we are using" Android" in a special sense, and not in the way the typical user does when they say, "I just replaced my iPhone with a Nexus 8 running Android."
- maaaats 13y ago
  That's true. However, as the article says, the "Android" you are forking is something completely different than what is running on phones.
- eknkc 13y ago
  If it happens that the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app are all closed source Google apps (just like now, or will be in a while), then what? You can create a non-google experience aosp build (meh..) or tweak the filesystem caching parameters or something like that at best. I think Google is doing what's best for Android, but Android is not open source anymore. Firefox OS might be a better choice for open source comminity to spend time on. I haven't been following latest development, how's the hardware situation on FF OS?
  - sethhochberg 13y ago
    To me, those type of functions (dialer, messaging, music player, etc) are more "app" than "OS" - obviously alternate music, messaging, home screen, etc apps are available, but what about dialers? Is that piece of the system replaceable? I think it would make a lot of sense if the base Android OS (AOSP, as I understand it?) were only as functional as it needed to be for useful apps to run, and then the "Google app stack" or "Cyanogen app stack" or whoever else's, open source or closed source or anything in between, could be dropped in to provide the user-facing functionality. The key seems to be getting to a point where important pieces of that underlying functionality aren't wrapped up in the "Google app stack".
brudgers 13y ago
The critical path for free software runs through open sourced hardware specifications. Otherwise, a.project like replicant can never hit enough of the moving target to gain the critical mass needed to take off.
- chatman 13y ago
  If the few pieces of hardware drivers, that still remain proprietary, are reverse engineered, then everything will be fine for a sustained prominence of Replicant/Free Android.
  - Someone 13y ago
    Sustained only for as long as hardware it is running on can be bought. In practice, it will be replaced with new hardware with new proprietary drivers really soon, making additional reverse engineering necessary.
  - yitchelle 13y ago
    That is true until a new GPS module, or WIFI module, (or another core hardware module) makes it on the PCB. I can't help but feel that the folks adopting this path will always be a couple of generation behind.
gilgoomesh 13y ago
I can't see this being a pleasurable user-experience. Ever. I think this highlights the fact that it would be much easier to start with open hardware and install something intended to be fully open like Ubuntu Touch on it. Unless you do that, you're going to need to reverse engineer every device driver for every piece of phone hardware – you'll never finish and the user will always be cut off from some percent of their phones features and the rest might not work correctly. I guess that a pleasurable user-experience might not be the end-goal and maybe this is fun because hacking.
- foley 13y ago
  Absolutely, I had great fun running all kinds of custom ROMs on my Galaxy s and One X but at no point did either of them function 100%.
- aray 13y ago
  It seems very analagous to a FLOSS-only desktop experience (for a while I think Fedora Linux was one). It was not a polished user experience, and certainly some things were lacking, but when I used it I was able to accomplish all the things I needed done (and face it, most of those can be done by the web browser anyways). The other reason I have hope for this is most of the non-FLOSS functionality is available at least in some form in web apps, or in a F-Droid application. Google Maps, Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, etc all have pretty good (capable, functional) mobile web applications, and all you need FLOSS for is the web browser.
  - micampe 13y ago
    What is the difference then if you are still using proprietary services that run proprietary code, just on a different CPU? You are not gaining anything from the change other than the inconvenience of "pretty good" web applications instead of local native applications: you still can't modify them or verify their behavior.
    - aray 13y ago
      It depends on what your goals are. If you want a system that's only running open-source-built code on your device, but are willing to have your device interact with devices running proprietary software, then mobile web applications are fine. If you only want to interact with devices and services that are using open source software, then you're likely not to miss e.g. Google Maps application in the first place.
qwerta 13y ago
There is one more dimension: surveillance and security. Closed source phone could have spyware. It also does not get security updates just 6 months after release. I simply want some basic privacy and phone which lasts more than 2 years. Commercial vendors failed here, perhaps OSS will deliver.
- rimantas 13y ago
  Will OSS also deliver cell towers? Otherwise the talk about privacy does not make much sense.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    OSS can deliver good encryption solutions and can greatly enhance security. No solution is perfect, but if you read the trail of Snowden-branded leaks and the opinions of security experts, the greatest weapon that the NSA possess are the vulnerabilities and backdoors planted on people's own devices. Plus, NSA is not the only enemy, or the enemy most of us should fear, but rather organized crime syndicates or business competitors, which for many of us are much more immediate threats. You're making the mistake of thinking that just because all security solutions are imperfect, they are somehow equal. You're wrong!
  - qwerta 13y ago
    I was talking more about content of the phone: emails, passwords, pictures, contact lists... But proper OSS phone could give answer to GSM location as well. Imagine network similar to Tor, where SIM would be emulated on phone and shared among community members. Phone would automatically rotate SIM and network IDs every hour. The actual voice call would be over encrypted VOIP. I am not saying it would be practical (or even legal), but OSS could solve technical part of it.
- hrjet 13y ago
  But unless you eliminate all closed-source components (hardware and software) you are still liable to spyware. There was news a few days back of irons from a certain company having spyware! Imagine what could be put in the firmware of a mobile device!
aray 13y ago
Radio (cellular) drivers are notoriously closed source and proprietary. Looks like they're reverse engineering the existing radio drivers and re-implementing them as open source[1]! Thats very interesting. They don't describe how they're doing the reverse-engineering though. [1] http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Libsamsung-ipc http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Libsamsu...
Semaphor 13y ago
> But CyanogenMOD gets around the restrictions placed on redistributing Google’s apps and other proprietary code by backing up the original copies from a user’s phone before installing the replacement operating system. Do they? My understanding was, that they come with some stuff that's released by google as closed source + the gapps package.
- anon1385 13y ago
  That used to be the case but Google got their lawyers to send a Cease and Desist to CyanogenMod: http://www.androidcentral.com/google-sends-cease-desist-order-cyanogenmod http://www.androidcentral.com/google-sends-cease-desist-orde...
  - Semaphor 13y ago
    No, I'm talking about "backing up the original copies from a user’s phone".
    - zmmmmm 13y ago
      That, actually, was where it started, and where, philosophically it still rests today. In practise, people now just blow away their original gapps and download a separately created gapps package from some free download service and flash it. But in theory, they could have (legally) extracted all the apps from their own phone, saved them, then flashed them back on again themselves. This theoretical possibility is what keeps people using gapps with custom ROMs (just barely) on the legal side of the thin line dividing fair use and outright copyright infringement.
tete 13y ago
I wish this would become become big. Something I wonder about the closed hardware drivers.. I am sorry, no hardware hacker, but what I always wonder is whether or not something like ReNouveau for Nvidia Graphics Cards would also be helpful to such projects. They did a really great job at reverse engineering and writing nice drivers. I think there would be lots of people running something like that, even when they don't use Replicant, but would love to support them.
- bad_user 13y ago
  About Nouveau, on a 2 years old laptop I have with an Nvidia card, I always had problems with Ubuntu and Nvidia's proprietary drivers, up to the point that I got so sick of it as to buy a new laptop without an Nvidia card on it. But then I tried out the Nouveau drivers and oh my, the problems vanished. The Nouveau drivers are right now better than the official drivers for some Nvidia cards. And they'll never vanish, even if Nvidia decides to drop support for older GeForce cards.
  - thelukester 13y ago
    On my 2-3yr old laptop w/ a 8600GT, I agree that for 2D only X11 apps, Nouveau drivers seem to have less issues with tearing and drawing than the proprietary drivers. But once you want to need power management to run on battery, play games, or watch HD videos, the Nouveau are buggy, glitchy, and useless. I have an extensive Steam library and while most of the Linux games work fine with proprietary, they are unplayable with Nouveau. I really hope Valve's commitment to Linux motivates Nvidia to put some resources into their open source drivers like AMD and Intel have done. If Nouveau was my only option under Linux, I'd switch to Windows. Even for non-gammers, how can you seriously recommend laptop drivers that don't offer critical features like power management and video out?
ravestar 13y ago
This project is dead on arrival. You cannot build solid structures on moving ground. We need open hardware/parts/DIY kits easily accessible first.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Linux (and other open OS's) have had to fight this from the very beginning. It may seem DOA now, but then Linux did too for a lot of people. And while we still need the occasional closed source firmware blob or driver, there are now also systems where we can replace every little bit from the BIOS upwards with open alternatives. In the mobile space, RockChip has released sufficient source to allow Ubuntu to be ported to the RK3188 CPU's (quad core Cortex A9), so there's movement. Given that RockChip is one of 3 CPU providers dominating the Chinese Android devices, if this helps their market share you can expect MTK and AllWinner (the two other main CPU providers) to be more open too. That does not mean these systems are open - a lot of pieces still will be locked down often because they license GPU's etc. and don't have the rights to open up everything, but several of the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturers in fact do seem to want to make custom builds available (not least because a lot of these devices ship as XBMC devices - many distributors now ship with XBMC by default, and at least one offers to flash their Android sticks with plain Linux + Linux version of XBMC instead of Android)
joeblau 13y ago
I feel like history, and unfortunately mistakes, are repeating themselves. I love *nix'ed based OSes but the developers on those platforms are all self serving. This includes the developers that claim to make a version that is going to be "Truly Open/Free". These developers are coming in with pure intentions but once they hit roadblocks, their sentiment will change. With current Linux distros, you have 3 major roots: Debian, Slackware and Redhat. From those, 100's of children have spawned which fragments the community, creates factions, divides, conquers and creates this "crab in a bucket" mentality. Meanwhile Microsoft or Apple come along with one vision and just clean up the market. What I want to see, and what I think would work, is Google championing this effort in trying to make a truly free version of Android.
laureny 13y ago
I wish the talented team behind Replicant would choose to put their energy toward something that will actually be useful, because as it stands right now, Replicant is guaranteed to never go anywhere. The main problem with Replicant is that it's solving a problem that users don't have. Ask any phone user (any, not just Android) if they care whether their phone is running on free software and either they will have no idea what you're talking about or they will tell you "Not really, I just want my phone to work". The Replicant team (like the FSF) is trying to solve a problem that only they have. Naïveté about how the world works is only cute for so long.
Mikeb85 13y ago
What I'd rather see is more work put into Meego/Sailfish or Firefox OS. Maybe introduce a native app layer for Firefox OS, that would be pretty sweet. I'd add Ubuntu Phone here too, except it runs like shit and is pretty much useless at the moment. Firefox OS is already way more polished... As for Android, I don't think the chip vendors are too interesting in opening up their drivers, and it's not like Google will ever open up their services (and why would they?). Pretty much everything in Android that doesn't hook up directly to Google is already open anyway...
gegtik 13y ago
Replicant's maintainers have a real attitude problem imho http://redmine.replicant.us/issues/669 http://redmine.replicant.us/issues/669
Zigurd 13y ago
I help people make things using the Android OS - things that are not phones and that do not include the Google ecosystem. I have also been involved with using code from AOSP to create Android compatibility for non-Android OSs and in convincing OEMs of non-Android system to use it. In my experience I have traced the boundaries of what Google allows people in general to do, and their OEM partners to do with Android. This is roughly how it goes: If you want to use AOSP for anything, including competing with Google, go for it. Google won't sue you, and won't even FUD you the way Sun did and Oracle continues to do if you want to use an open source Java implementation. If you make Android devices that use Google's logo and proprietary code and ecosystem, you can stuff Android full of crapware that your carrier partners want, and that your product managers delude themselves into thinking gives you "differentiation," even though Google really does not want that to happen. What you can't do is compete with Google, or take a cafeteria approach to using Google's apps and ecosystem. You are in or out. No in-between. AOSP is Apache licensed and Google adheres to the letter and spirit of that license. Both B&N and Amazon compete with Google using AOSP code and there has never been a hint of FUD aimed at them for doing so. Many China-market phones with China-based ecosystems are based on Android. Here is where the lines blur a bit: China-based Lenovo gets away with making AOSP-based products for the China market with non-Google ecosystems and they make Google-logo Android phones. Somewhat famously, Taiwan-based ASUS was slapped down by Google for trying to do, as far as I can tell, exactly the same thing. There are also Google OEMs who make OPhone handsets. So Google hasn't been 100% consistent regarding OEMs with one foot in the mainland China market and one foot in the Google ecosystem. It also appears that OEMs licensing other OSs, notablely Windows Phone, get no retaliation from Google. I also dealt with Sun, trying to get a license to use Java in a VoIP-oriented OS. They were utterly opaque bastards about the licensing process, cost, etc. and about their position regarding Java patents and open source implementations. to the point where we concluded they could go to hell and we would use an open source Java implementation. Using AOSP is by contrast FUD-free.
- fpgeek 13y ago
  It wasn't ASUS that got slapped down, it was Acer. ASUS, Samsung, Huawei (and probably others beyond Lenovo) have had no trouble distributing AOSP-based products without Google services. Acer's situation was different for two reasons: 1. Aliyun (Acer's partner in this) was distributed pirated apps via their app store, including pirated Google apps: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-to-be-distributing-pirated-android-apps-many-from-another-pirate-site/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-con... 2. Google claimed that the Android-based OS that Acer and Aliyun had built did not pass the standard Android compatibility tests, in violation of Acer's agreements with the Open Handset Alliance (a prerequisite for their license for the various Google apps). I'm not sure if a third-party verified this claim before the project was killed, but it's plausible. And we do know that most of the non-Google products OHA members distribute in China should pass those same tests. They're usually the same as products the member is selling outside China with Google services, with the exception of China-specific radios.
mfincham 13y ago
So if I want to run this today and get the best experience, what phone should I buy?
Mikeb85 13y ago
Another thing that needs to be said, is that the existence of proprietary software on Android doesn't make Android any less 'free'. Just like the existence of proprietary software like Chrome, Flash, Steam, etc... doesn't make my openSUSE system any less free...
AsymetricCom 13y ago
A standardized open android just means easier rooting by hardware. No, you don't want to write to that location, mr. software, how about I link you a dialog about violating your EULA instead?
frank_boyd 13y ago
Great! That should keep Ubuntu/Mark Shuttleworth honest, in the mobile space.
darklajid 13y ago
I'd love to use something like this. But so far that's not going to happen (and it seems it won't ever be possible). Ignoring the fact that most devices I'd like to put this on (I have some old handsets, I'd like to put this on my wife's phone etc.) aren't supported - that's fixable - I'm unable to accept a mobile OS without Wifi support. And I have a hard time thinking of a solution to this problem. I'd love to hear something different, would be grateful if someone could prove me wrong, but I'm really pessimistic that this will change.. All the other tradeoffs are fine. Camera, GPS - not an issue. But data connectivity and Wifi are the basic requirements to use my devices.

250 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

Unfortunately Replicant does not run on my phone. When time comes to purchase a new one, I will probably get a compatible one. Most of the apps I use already come from the F-Droid repository https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/ https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/ as there is a lot of fantastic software available there. I don't like it when threads end up as list of lists but some recommendations that might not be well known: Aard is a offline wiki(pedia and others) reader. AFWall+ is a firewall to give/revoke internet access to apps. It is a fork of DroidWall which went inactive. Document Viewer is the best PDF reader I know and it's free software, hooray. It can automatically cut off white margins, you can set your own touch controls etc. Gibberbot is a great XMPP client. I tested many but this one did not randomly stop receiving messages like all the others did. GnuCash for keeping track of finances. Mirakel is a Todo app which I switched from Astrid to. Astrid is free software too but relies on several non-free libraries from what I know. Mirakel seems more concerned with privacy. OsmAnd for offline maps. And of course you can get APG, AdAway, ConnectBot, FBReader, K-9 Mail, ScummVM, Terminal Emulator etc. from F-Droid.

kriro 13y ago
With the Nexus 5 out, the 4 might drop in price and make for a good "play with Ubuntu phone" phone :) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Install https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Install
- Create 13y ago
  Really BAD: has too much proprietary things and the hardware is bad for freedom: modem transport is over HSIC (high speed USB), but it controls the GPS (included in the modem chip), audio and perhaps NAND too http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/TargetsEvaluation http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/TargetsE...
  - happycube 13y ago
    Looks like you want a Galaxy Nexus or a Samsung SOC S1-S3.
ersii 13y ago
Just out of curiosity, what is your current unsupported device?
- c3kwue 13y ago
  HTC Desire (which is very similar to the Nexus One). Just writing this reminded me that I really like HTC Sense and would probably miss that the most.

AndrewDucker 13y ago

One of the things I love about Android is that you _can_ do this with it, if you so wish. You can't build a Truly Free Version of Windows Phone. You can't build a Truly Free Version of iPhone. But if Android doesn't do what you want, then you can fork it, tweak it, and turn it into something that does!

brudgers 13y ago
I agree so long as we are using" Android" in a special sense, and not in the way the typical user does when they say, "I just replaced my iPhone with a Nexus 8 running Android."
maaaats 13y ago
That's true. However, as the article says, the "Android" you are forking is something completely different than what is running on phones.
eknkc 13y ago
If it happens that the music player, dialer, home screen, messaging app are all closed source Google apps (just like now, or will be in a while), then what? You can create a non-google experience aosp build (meh..) or tweak the filesystem caching parameters or something like that at best. I think Google is doing what's best for Android, but Android is not open source anymore. Firefox OS might be a better choice for open source comminity to spend time on. I haven't been following latest development, how's the hardware situation on FF OS?
- sethhochberg 13y ago
  To me, those type of functions (dialer, messaging, music player, etc) are more "app" than "OS" - obviously alternate music, messaging, home screen, etc apps are available, but what about dialers? Is that piece of the system replaceable? I think it would make a lot of sense if the base Android OS (AOSP, as I understand it?) were only as functional as it needed to be for useful apps to run, and then the "Google app stack" or "Cyanogen app stack" or whoever else's, open source or closed source or anything in between, could be dropped in to provide the user-facing functionality. The key seems to be getting to a point where important pieces of that underlying functionality aren't wrapped up in the "Google app stack".

brudgers 13y ago

The critical path for free software runs through open sourced hardware specifications. Otherwise, a.project like replicant can never hit enough of the moving target to gain the critical mass needed to take off.

chatman 13y ago
If the few pieces of hardware drivers, that still remain proprietary, are reverse engineered, then everything will be fine for a sustained prominence of Replicant/Free Android.
- Someone 13y ago
  Sustained only for as long as hardware it is running on can be bought. In practice, it will be replaced with new hardware with new proprietary drivers really soon, making additional reverse engineering necessary.
- yitchelle 13y ago
  That is true until a new GPS module, or WIFI module, (or another core hardware module) makes it on the PCB. I can't help but feel that the folks adopting this path will always be a couple of generation behind.

gilgoomesh 13y ago

I can't see this being a pleasurable user-experience. Ever. I think this highlights the fact that it would be much easier to start with open hardware and install something intended to be fully open like Ubuntu Touch on it. Unless you do that, you're going to need to reverse engineer every device driver for every piece of phone hardware – you'll never finish and the user will always be cut off from some percent of their phones features and the rest might not work correctly. I guess that a pleasurable user-experience might not be the end-goal and maybe this is fun because hacking.

foley 13y ago
Absolutely, I had great fun running all kinds of custom ROMs on my Galaxy s and One X but at no point did either of them function 100%.
aray 13y ago
It seems very analagous to a FLOSS-only desktop experience (for a while I think Fedora Linux was one). It was not a polished user experience, and certainly some things were lacking, but when I used it I was able to accomplish all the things I needed done (and face it, most of those can be done by the web browser anyways). The other reason I have hope for this is most of the non-FLOSS functionality is available at least in some form in web apps, or in a F-Droid application. Google Maps, Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, etc all have pretty good (capable, functional) mobile web applications, and all you need FLOSS for is the web browser.
- micampe 13y ago
  What is the difference then if you are still using proprietary services that run proprietary code, just on a different CPU? You are not gaining anything from the change other than the inconvenience of "pretty good" web applications instead of local native applications: you still can't modify them or verify their behavior.
  - aray 13y ago
    It depends on what your goals are. If you want a system that's only running open-source-built code on your device, but are willing to have your device interact with devices running proprietary software, then mobile web applications are fine. If you only want to interact with devices and services that are using open source software, then you're likely not to miss e.g. Google Maps application in the first place.

qwerta 13y ago

There is one more dimension: surveillance and security. Closed source phone could have spyware. It also does not get security updates just 6 months after release. I simply want some basic privacy and phone which lasts more than 2 years. Commercial vendors failed here, perhaps OSS will deliver.

rimantas 13y ago
Will OSS also deliver cell towers? Otherwise the talk about privacy does not make much sense.
- bad_user 13y ago
  OSS can deliver good encryption solutions and can greatly enhance security. No solution is perfect, but if you read the trail of Snowden-branded leaks and the opinions of security experts, the greatest weapon that the NSA possess are the vulnerabilities and backdoors planted on people's own devices. Plus, NSA is not the only enemy, or the enemy most of us should fear, but rather organized crime syndicates or business competitors, which for many of us are much more immediate threats. You're making the mistake of thinking that just because all security solutions are imperfect, they are somehow equal. You're wrong!
- qwerta 13y ago
  I was talking more about content of the phone: emails, passwords, pictures, contact lists... But proper OSS phone could give answer to GSM location as well. Imagine network similar to Tor, where SIM would be emulated on phone and shared among community members. Phone would automatically rotate SIM and network IDs every hour. The actual voice call would be over encrypted VOIP. I am not saying it would be practical (or even legal), but OSS could solve technical part of it.
hrjet 13y ago
But unless you eliminate all closed-source components (hardware and software) you are still liable to spyware. There was news a few days back of irons from a certain company having spyware! Imagine what could be put in the firmware of a mobile device!

aray 13y ago

Radio (cellular) drivers are notoriously closed source and proprietary. Looks like they're reverse engineering the existing radio drivers and re-implementing them as open source[1]! Thats very interesting. They don't describe how they're doing the reverse-engineering though. [1] http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Libsamsung-ipc http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Libsamsu...

Semaphor 13y ago

> But CyanogenMOD gets around the restrictions placed on redistributing Google’s apps and other proprietary code by backing up the original copies from a user’s phone before installing the replacement operating system. Do they? My understanding was, that they come with some stuff that's released by google as closed source + the gapps package.

anon1385 13y ago
That used to be the case but Google got their lawyers to send a Cease and Desist to CyanogenMod: http://www.androidcentral.com/google-sends-cease-desist-order-cyanogenmod http://www.androidcentral.com/google-sends-cease-desist-orde...
- Semaphor 13y ago
  No, I'm talking about "backing up the original copies from a user’s phone".
  - zmmmmm 13y ago
    That, actually, was where it started, and where, philosophically it still rests today. In practise, people now just blow away their original gapps and download a separately created gapps package from some free download service and flash it. But in theory, they could have (legally) extracted all the apps from their own phone, saved them, then flashed them back on again themselves. This theoretical possibility is what keeps people using gapps with custom ROMs (just barely) on the legal side of the thin line dividing fair use and outright copyright infringement.

tete 13y ago

I wish this would become become big. Something I wonder about the closed hardware drivers.. I am sorry, no hardware hacker, but what I always wonder is whether or not something like ReNouveau for Nvidia Graphics Cards would also be helpful to such projects. They did a really great job at reverse engineering and writing nice drivers. I think there would be lots of people running something like that, even when they don't use Replicant, but would love to support them.

bad_user 13y ago
About Nouveau, on a 2 years old laptop I have with an Nvidia card, I always had problems with Ubuntu and Nvidia's proprietary drivers, up to the point that I got so sick of it as to buy a new laptop without an Nvidia card on it. But then I tried out the Nouveau drivers and oh my, the problems vanished. The Nouveau drivers are right now better than the official drivers for some Nvidia cards. And they'll never vanish, even if Nvidia decides to drop support for older GeForce cards.
- thelukester 13y ago
  On my 2-3yr old laptop w/ a 8600GT, I agree that for 2D only X11 apps, Nouveau drivers seem to have less issues with tearing and drawing than the proprietary drivers. But once you want to need power management to run on battery, play games, or watch HD videos, the Nouveau are buggy, glitchy, and useless. I have an extensive Steam library and while most of the Linux games work fine with proprietary, they are unplayable with Nouveau. I really hope Valve's commitment to Linux motivates Nvidia to put some resources into their open source drivers like AMD and Intel have done. If Nouveau was my only option under Linux, I'd switch to Windows. Even for non-gammers, how can you seriously recommend laptop drivers that don't offer critical features like power management and video out?

ravestar 13y ago

This project is dead on arrival. You cannot build solid structures on moving ground. We need open hardware/parts/DIY kits easily accessible first.

vidarh 13y ago
Linux (and other open OS's) have had to fight this from the very beginning. It may seem DOA now, but then Linux did too for a lot of people. And while we still need the occasional closed source firmware blob or driver, there are now also systems where we can replace every little bit from the BIOS upwards with open alternatives. In the mobile space, RockChip has released sufficient source to allow Ubuntu to be ported to the RK3188 CPU's (quad core Cortex A9), so there's movement. Given that RockChip is one of 3 CPU providers dominating the Chinese Android devices, if this helps their market share you can expect MTK and AllWinner (the two other main CPU providers) to be more open too. That does not mean these systems are open - a lot of pieces still will be locked down often because they license GPU's etc. and don't have the rights to open up everything, but several of the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturers in fact do seem to want to make custom builds available (not least because a lot of these devices ship as XBMC devices - many distributors now ship with XBMC by default, and at least one offers to flash their Android sticks with plain Linux + Linux version of XBMC instead of Android)

joeblau 13y ago

I feel like history, and unfortunately mistakes, are repeating themselves. I love *nix'ed based OSes but the developers on those platforms are all self serving. This includes the developers that claim to make a version that is going to be "Truly Open/Free". These developers are coming in with pure intentions but once they hit roadblocks, their sentiment will change. With current Linux distros, you have 3 major roots: Debian, Slackware and Redhat. From those, 100's of children have spawned which fragments the community, creates factions, divides, conquers and creates this "crab in a bucket" mentality. Meanwhile Microsoft or Apple come along with one vision and just clean up the market. What I want to see, and what I think would work, is Google championing this effort in trying to make a truly free version of Android.

laureny 13y ago

I wish the talented team behind Replicant would choose to put their energy toward something that will actually be useful, because as it stands right now, Replicant is guaranteed to never go anywhere. The main problem with Replicant is that it's solving a problem that users don't have. Ask any phone user (any, not just Android) if they care whether their phone is running on free software and either they will have no idea what you're talking about or they will tell you "Not really, I just want my phone to work". The Replicant team (like the FSF) is trying to solve a problem that only they have. Naïveté about how the world works is only cute for so long.

Mikeb85 13y ago

What I'd rather see is more work put into Meego/Sailfish or Firefox OS. Maybe introduce a native app layer for Firefox OS, that would be pretty sweet. I'd add Ubuntu Phone here too, except it runs like shit and is pretty much useless at the moment. Firefox OS is already way more polished... As for Android, I don't think the chip vendors are too interesting in opening up their drivers, and it's not like Google will ever open up their services (and why would they?). Pretty much everything in Android that doesn't hook up directly to Google is already open anyway...

gegtik 13y ago

Replicant's maintainers have a real attitude problem imho http://redmine.replicant.us/issues/669 http://redmine.replicant.us/issues/669

Zigurd 13y ago

I help people make things using the Android OS - things that are not phones and that do not include the Google ecosystem. I have also been involved with using code from AOSP to create Android compatibility for non-Android OSs and in convincing OEMs of non-Android system to use it. In my experience I have traced the boundaries of what Google allows people in general to do, and their OEM partners to do with Android. This is roughly how it goes: If you want to use AOSP for anything, including competing with Google, go for it. Google won't sue you, and won't even FUD you the way Sun did and Oracle continues to do if you want to use an open source Java implementation. If you make Android devices that use Google's logo and proprietary code and ecosystem, you can stuff Android full of crapware that your carrier partners want, and that your product managers delude themselves into thinking gives you "differentiation," even though Google really does not want that to happen. What you can't do is compete with Google, or take a cafeteria approach to using Google's apps and ecosystem. You are in or out. No in-between. AOSP is Apache licensed and Google adheres to the letter and spirit of that license. Both B&N and Amazon compete with Google using AOSP code and there has never been a hint of FUD aimed at them for doing so. Many China-market phones with China-based ecosystems are based on Android. Here is where the lines blur a bit: China-based Lenovo gets away with making AOSP-based products for the China market with non-Google ecosystems and they make Google-logo Android phones. Somewhat famously, Taiwan-based ASUS was slapped down by Google for trying to do, as far as I can tell, exactly the same thing. There are also Google OEMs who make OPhone handsets. So Google hasn't been 100% consistent regarding OEMs with one foot in the mainland China market and one foot in the Google ecosystem. It also appears that OEMs licensing other OSs, notablely Windows Phone, get no retaliation from Google. I also dealt with Sun, trying to get a license to use Java in a VoIP-oriented OS. They were utterly opaque bastards about the licensing process, cost, etc. and about their position regarding Java patents and open source implementations. to the point where we concluded they could go to hell and we would use an open source Java implementation. Using AOSP is by contrast FUD-free.

fpgeek 13y ago
It wasn't ASUS that got slapped down, it was Acer. ASUS, Samsung, Huawei (and probably others beyond Lenovo) have had no trouble distributing AOSP-based products without Google services. Acer's situation was different for two reasons: 1. Aliyun (Acer's partner in this) was distributed pirated apps via their app store, including pirated Google apps: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-to-be-distributing-pirated-android-apps-many-from-another-pirate-site/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-con... 2. Google claimed that the Android-based OS that Acer and Aliyun had built did not pass the standard Android compatibility tests, in violation of Acer's agreements with the Open Handset Alliance (a prerequisite for their license for the various Google apps). I'm not sure if a third-party verified this claim before the project was killed, but it's plausible. And we do know that most of the non-Google products OHA members distribute in China should pass those same tests. They're usually the same as products the member is selling outside China with Google services, with the exception of China-specific radios.

mfincham 13y ago

So if I want to run this today and get the best experience, what phone should I buy?

Mikeb85 13y ago

Another thing that needs to be said, is that the existence of proprietary software on Android doesn't make Android any less 'free'. Just like the existence of proprietary software like Chrome, Flash, Steam, etc... doesn't make my openSUSE system any less free...

AsymetricCom 13y ago

A standardized open android just means easier rooting by hardware. No, you don't want to write to that location, mr. software, how about I link you a dialog about violating your EULA instead?

frank_boyd 13y ago

Great! That should keep Ubuntu/Mark Shuttleworth honest, in the mobile space.

darklajid 13y ago

I'd love to use something like this. But so far that's not going to happen (and it seems it won't ever be possible). Ignoring the fact that most devices I'd like to put this on (I have some old handsets, I'd like to put this on my wife's phone etc.) aren't supported - that's fixable - I'm unable to accept a mobile OS without Wifi support. And I have a hard time thinking of a solution to this problem. I'd love to hear something different, would be grateful if someone could prove me wrong, but I'm really pessimistic that this will change.. All the other tradeoffs are fine. Camera, GPS - not an issue. But data connectivity and Wifi are the basic requirements to use my devices.