4 ms·

Then maybe it's better to discuss whether Android, as ultimately delivered to end-users, is free software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://ww

Then maybe it's better to discuss whether Android, as ultimately delivered to end-users, is free software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-import... Regardless of whether most users know what to do with the source code, are they free to ask or hire a developer of their choice to study and modify it on their behalf? drdaeman's point, which seems inarguable to me, is that with most Android devices, the answer is no, because Sony/Samsung/Motorola are free to use AOSP code under the Apache license, but they don't pass that freedom on to the user.

notatoad 13y ago
I believe that's called "moving the goalposts". Android is free. that's what the original discussion was. No, most of the time products based on android as delivered to customers are not free software. But that doesn't mean android isn't free.
- rquirk 13y ago
  As usual, RMS had this sussed out years before everyone else realised what was going on http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fr...
- sixbrx 13y ago
  Well it also implies that Android isn't popular with consumers so isn't much worth talking about, as consumers.
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Relevant to this discussion is that Google's nefarious plans (more people using the internet) would have been met even with a fully free software stack. They had to expend more effort building an Apache codebase to appease their partners, who wanted to have their own (minor) proprietary forks. This actually makes Android more attractive to Microsoft and generally increases the chance of a divergent, proprietary fork, which I believe Kindle already is.

notatoad 13y ago

I believe that's called "moving the goalposts". Android is free. that's what the original discussion was. No, most of the time products based on android as delivered to customers are not free software. But that doesn't mean android isn't free.

rquirk 13y ago
As usual, RMS had this sussed out years before everyone else realised what was going on http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fr...
sixbrx 13y ago
Well it also implies that Android isn't popular with consumers so isn't much worth talking about, as consumers.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

Relevant to this discussion is that Google's nefarious plans (more people using the internet) would have been met even with a fully free software stack. They had to expend more effort building an Apache codebase to appease their partners, who wanted to have their own (minor) proprietary forks. This actually makes Android more attractive to Microsoft and generally increases the chance of a divergent, proprietary fork, which I believe Kindle already is.