Open source promotes open competition.
Commercial entities do not like competition.
Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
61–70 of 110 posts
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#62GPLv2 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…
From the kernel's COPYING file:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs
that use kernel services by normal system calls -
this is merely considered normal use of the kernel,
and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived
work".
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#63Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#64Earlier 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.
Is software freedom defined differently on phones vs tablets?
Why does Android 3.x not being for phones make any difference at all to this conversation?
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#65After 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…
After years of reading Stallman haters and lovers I'm sorry to say that he is almost always right
I frequently disagree with RMS' positions. Not because they're logically inconsistent, but because they're based on premises I don't accept. I think a lot of people are the same way; we can recognize an argument that "if you accept X, then Y", and say "OK, but I don't accept X".
In this case I think he's reaching the same conclusion I would, but via a different route (albeit one with some of the same stops along the way). So in this case I'd agree with his conclusion.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.
Is software freedom defined differently on phones vs tablets? Why does Android 3.x not being for phones make any difference at all to this conversation?
Because the title is "Android phones...", and also the majority of Android devices being sold are phones. You definitely have the option to get a non-Honeycomb Android phone right now.
Afaik Honeycomb was never meant for phones, either.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#67GPLv2 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…
This is not correct, you don't understand how the gpl works, or how linking works wrt license compliance, nor do you understand the kernels approach to GPL compliance and linking.
The real problem is that I could point you to source.google.com and you could download the kernel and other gpl components from honeycomb right this second, but kernel.org and the osuosl site is recovering from a nasty hack. When those machines are back up, I invite you to go get the code you seem to be interested in.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#68GPLv2 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…
From the kernel's COPYING file: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". As I read it, the non-Linux part of Android is entirely in user-space, and thus exempt from the terms of the GPL with respect to the kernel.
OK, thanks for clarification. I didn't know about this special exception.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I could have been a millionaire.
I can't say anything about that but I would bet my money on gnaffle's point.
It's very difficult to not have the opportunity to become a millionaire. For example I could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. But I didn't. Likewise, Google hasn't published the Honeycomb source yet.
Also, it is strictly logic, you can follow everything from a false statement (false => anything). So, if Google had released the source for Honeycomb I could have been a millionaire is a strictly true statement.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While I respect your opinion (everyone is entitled to have one), I hope you realize that it's not hard to come up with other examples of technology that is not 'open' in any way, yet could be used for malicious or undesirable purposes, right?
I mean, I love open-source and everything, but I honestly don't give a sh_t whether the 'firmware' of the plane I'm flying, the playback device and amplifier pumping out my tunes, the microwave oven that heats my lasagna, the ECU controlling my cars engine or the software in my satnav system is 'open' and 'free'. All of those could have potential privacy or safety implications. For probably around 99.9% of all people using cell-phones, the exact same reasoning holds for how they think about them, and how they would prefer it to just work well and have more functionality, instead of carrying this (to them) abstract notion of being 'open'. If 'closed' means they get a better product (which is very often the case), then closed is better for them.
Also, you are fooling yourself if you honestly believe that 'open' is a guarantee for 'safe', 'secure' or 'thrustworthy'. Open-source software has exploits and security holes just like proprietary software. Maybe less, but let's not pretend 'open' is equivalent to 'safe'. You can never be 100% sure the source code you are looking at is actually exactly the same as what is running on this piece of hardware you bought anyway, even though the manufacturer says so.
I kind of agree with what spokengent said. FOSS has many advantages, but RMS is really taking things too far, as he has always done, pretending FOSS only has advantages and no downsides, and proprietary software is always bad and evil. He doesn't seem to understand there are many devices and applications that are simply incompatible with the FOSS way of doing things, for various reasons that have nothing to do with privacy, freedom or security.
RMS is a FOSS absolutist, advocating FOSS like it's a religion, not a way of doing things that works really well for many things, but maybe not so well for others.
Whether FOSS works well for cell-phones is up for debate, personally I don't really believe in it, and the way the Android ecosystem is developing and the strange sem-open development model behind is, is only confirming this, at least for now.