Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

digitizor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#41

Post by Tichy »

darklajid wrote: post #37
Tichy wrote: post #16

Are there Android phones with Android 3 (Honeycomb) yet? Because the article talks only about Honeycomb, so I think it is simply incorrect... As for locking the devices, unfortunately "free" also means that device vendors are free to lock the devices. If you care, don't get such a device (my philosophy: stick to the Nexus line to be safe).

No, locking down stuff like that is not 'freedom' in his (and mine) book. Locking down a device so that the _owner_ of said device cannot mess with it as he likes after paying you is not related to freedom. It removes freedom.

Yes, but it is not Android doing the locking down, it is individual vendors. So Android is not to blame for that.

Edit: so your complaint is that Android id not on the GPL? Or why the downvotes? Indeed, the GPL would be more free in a way, more restricted in another way.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#42

Post by Tichy »

redthrowaway wrote: post #27
enjo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

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.

Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#43

Post by bad_user »

guelo wrote: post #18

My complete speculation as to why Honeycomb wasn't open sourced is Amazon. Amazon was forced to use an older Android for their tablet instead of being able to take advantage of Google's tablet work.

If Google didn't want for others to "take advantage" of its work, then they shouldn't have released Android as open-source in the first place.

In spite of people telling that Android is closed because it has a closed development branch, the one thing that you can do with open-source is to fork it if you're not happy with the current status quo.

But to fork Android 3.0 -- that's exactly what you cannot do. And that's definitely not open anymore.

I'm doing some apps for Android currently. I'm only testing on Android 2.2 / 2.3 -- that's because if I wanted a closed platform, I would prefer iOS instead.

When they'll release 3.x as open-source, then I'll be happy again.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#45

Post by RexRollman »

rodh257 wrote: post #3

We get it, this has been discussed over and over, Android 3.0 is not open source because the source was not released, can we move on now? Google will be releasing the source code to Ice Cream Sandwich, but for now, Android 3.0 is not open source. We didn't need Richard Stallman to tell us that.

So long as Google keeps referring to Android as open, I think the point needs to be brought up.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#47

Post by pornel »

Tichy wrote: post #41
darklajid wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, locking down stuff like that is not 'freedom' in his (and mine) book. Locking down a device so that the _owner_ of said device cannot mess with it as he likes after paying you is not related to freedom. It removes freedom.

Yes, but it is not Android doing the locking down, it is individual vendors. So Android is not to blame for that. Edit: so your complaint is that Android id not on the GPL? Or why the downvotes? Indeed, the GPL would be more free in a way, more restricted in another way.

> Indeed, the GPL would be more free in a way, more restricted in another way

True, and RMS is concerned with freedom for end-users above freedom for phone vendors and network operators.

GPL v3 with anti-tivoisation clauses seem to be exactly designed to disallow "malicious" firmware some Android phones have.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#48

Post by demallien »

enjo wrote: post #23
0x12 wrote: post #17

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-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 so…

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 ex…

The whole point of software being open is that you aren't left at the mercy of a corporation. Honeycomb is widely considered to be ait lacklastre (as you mention, it was pushed out in a hurry). Wouldn't it have been nice if that code had been truly open-sourced so that other companies and individual hackers could have scratched their various itches, getting the software up to speed faster? Instead of that, Google has sat on the source so that they can maintain control. 'Control' is antithetical to 'open'. I can see why Google want control, and I think those arguments are valid, but they need to stop claiming that the software is open. It is tangibly not open, and the situation only seems to be getting worse as time goes by.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#49

Post by spokengent »

danssig wrote: post #44
spokengent wrote: post #26

I for one love not having my freedom respected. It means good products that work.

Ah great, so you're an iPhone user to?

No, I've had an iPhone, and had android phones. At the moment I mainly use android.

My criteria for buying a phone does not feature "Does it respect my freedom". As usual Stallman is on a different planet to the rest of us, who just want shit to work.

Does Stallman only buy socks as long as he has full manufacturing instructions included? If he buys a bowl, does he insist they include the mould used to create it, as well as all the paints, a DVD documenting how it was made etc.

He's entertaining, but not much more than that.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#50

Post by flarg »

After years of reading Stallman haters and lovers I'm sorry to say that he is almost always right - good intentions never lead to good outcomes; only good actions from the outset. Google's failure to release the source for Android 3x maybe with good intentions, but it also pushes the envelope of what is acceptable for next time - which will probably be something like not releasing the source code for a year 'just to allow us to make some money'. Google effectively owns the internet for a lot of us, so they need to behave very very well - they need to do what Stallman says.
Post reply on HN