Live data from Hacker News

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

digitizor.com

51–60 of 110 posts

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

#51
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…

welcometo: http://www.netetrader.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.netetrader.com =====

jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30

===== http://www.netetrader.com =====

===== http://www.netetrader.com =====

===== http://www.netetrader.com =====

===== http://www.netetrader.com =====

===== http://www.netetrader.com =====

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

#52
post #6
post #4

Which ones do, I wonder?

All those with a locked bootloader. BTW: Is there a complete list which ones have an unlocked or unlockable bootloader? I know about the following: - Android Dev Phone 1 (HTC Dream) - Ion (HTC Magic) - Motorola Droid (unfortunately not the Milestone) - Nexus One (HTC Passion) - Nexus S (relockable) (Samsung Crespo)

I think we're moving towards unlocked phones. Both HTC and Samsung have sent signals that they want to open up their phones. And then we're talking about drivers and specifications. Everything that can get them one step ahead of Apple. Also, it seem to be deemed "cool" to be open, so they might just spin it to marketing.

Sadly I don't know if this will be the case for US, where the operators have way too much control over the devices. Luckily I live in Europe, outside of EU. :-)

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

#54
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

* the rest of us*

Speak for yourself, not for everyone else. I rather have free even if it means less functional.

And my socks or bowl doesn't have the ability to record my personal calls or track my location. Comparing the two is asinine.

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

#55
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I take issue with people claiming that Android is not open. However, Google disappointed me with their 3.0 release. I understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices, and I understand that it is their work and that they should get at least some control over it -- but they are taking way too long to release the 3.x version. I also understand the need for a closed development model, but w…

I don't get this. Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation where people contribute and together they make software. Google has all the right to hold the code back and only share it with the partners that adhere to its demands and use their services so that the development is paid for. Of course its another thing that doing all this they come out looking like a hypocrite preachin…

But the openness of Android is a big selling point, at least to a lot of us hackers that don't like the idea of a black box phone. Maybe Google figures it can afford to alienate that audience but I think they might regret it.

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

#56
GPLv2 says:

----citation----

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

----end-of-citation----

We know that:

1. Android is a collective work based on Linux

2. Non-Linux part of Android is not distributed as a separate work in binary form. In binary form both parts of Android (Linux and non-Linux) are distributed together as a whole.

3. According to GPLv2, "when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it"

So Google is clearly violating GPL here.

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

#57
post #47
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but Google never claimed to be on the GPL.

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

#59
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They could have been, though, if the source code had been released. :)
Post reply on HN