191–200 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been working on something similar myself, since Google has indicated Chromium WebView isn't a priority for them right now https://github.com/davisford/android-chromium-view
How does your work compare to this? https://github.com/pwnall/chromeview
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty As it should. There's nothing in open source that requires a warranty. Here's a snippet from the MIT license, generally considered open: "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINF…
anyone can make a license that is both open source and providing warranty btw. open source licenses generally don't provide warranty because they don't have to and devs, providing free stuff, certainly do not want to bother with warranties. Companies could.
Just compare how much an insurance costs that covers damages caused by yourself (being negligent) as opposed to those covering only damages caused by hardware/software defects.
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you shouldn't have to modify a firmware to install your own OS on an 'open' platform. IBM somehow figured out how to do it on an IBM 5150 back in the early 80s and my Raspberry Pi supports it on ARM systems. I'm happy to use my iPhone which doesn't allow firmware mods under warranty, however, I've never heard Apple talk about the iPhone being an open platform. Google's stance on the openness of Android strike…
Apple talking point # 3124: we never claimed our platform was open so we can be more hardline than RMS when critiquing Android. Yeah, that one never gets boring.
Notably, Play services is totally closed. So Google has abandoned the open source part of Android and is now developing the operating system as a completely closed product. Edit: downvotes don't change the truth of the observation. Android is no longer meaningfully open, other than a years old core of basic functions. Just like OSX and Darwin.
Everything in Play Services is application level. Just because Apple bundles a mail app and browser in with their OS doesn't mean that those kinds of things make up an operating system. Any tablet maker in China can still use Android to get a complete mobile operating system for free, without even telling Google they are going to do it. So can Amazon. Can I make a new phone with iOS for free, as long as I don't inclu…
Yup. People bashed Microsoft about this for years because everything was so tied together, there was even an agreement to unbundle it as part of a European Anti-Trust case[1]. As developers, we are ALWAYS talking about decoupling systems, making things easier to manage and exchanging data using APIs. Don't see what the problem is with this, and if it means Google is able to get security patches out quicker rather than relying on manufacturers, then this is a win-win situation.
I wonder if Apple will ever get the Microsoft treatment
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please put "Free Software (c)(tm)(r) FSF" or some appropriate similar notice. Otherwise people not familiar with the overloaded meaning of "Free" used by FSF would get a wrong impression that they are actually free to do whatever they want with it.
You are free to do whatever you want with the software. The only real restriction under the GPL is that you are not allowed to distribute modified binaries of GPL software without releasing the corresponding source code.
That is not 'free to do whatever you want'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are free to do whatever you want with the software. The only real restriction under the GPL is that you are not allowed to distribute modified binaries of GPL software without releasing the corresponding source code.
It's just as restrictive as any commercial license, except that instead of being prohibited from releasing the source, you are required to do so. That is not 'free to do whatever you want'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does your work compare to this? https://github.com/pwnall/chromeview
Read the first couple sentences on the github page
To provide a example, if someone asks me "how does Cydia compare to Installer", I say that it is based on an industry standard packaging system (as opposed to a one-off proprietary one), has package dependencies, a fast local search feature, installs by default with useful repositories, and is open source. It is not useful to say "Cydia is inspired by Installer but shares no common code".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does your work compare to this? https://github.com/pwnall/chromeview
"This project was inspired by pwnall's chromeview, but it shares no common code."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Play Services having a custom updater and the ability to silently gain more permissions is definitely not something available to average 3rd party developers.
Are you sure this is correct? How is this even possible when you can install Play Services on Android versions before Play Services was even conceived. How can you do this on custom AOSP builds? Play Services must be playing by the same rules as everyone else or it just wouldn't work on as many devices as it does.