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

71–80 of 110 posts

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

#71

Post by mkup »

cdibona wrote: post #67
mkup wrote: post #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…

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 mach…

> you don't understand how the gpl works, or how linking works wrt license compliance

Please clarify. Am I allowed to statically link GPL code with closed-source code and distribute resulting collective work in binary form? Am I allowed to dynamically link GPL code with closed-source code and distribute resulting collective work in binary form?

If the answer for the second question is "yes", what's the difference between GPL and LGPL then?

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

#72

Post by ZeroGravitas »

bad_user wrote: post #25
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…

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 understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices.

The stated reason was that 3.0 code was somewhere between broken and terrible on phone form factors. That's a much more understandable motivation for keeping things closed, both from a developer not wanting to embarrass yourself and as a platform builder not wanting to give the over-enthusiastic (or their customers) a bad experience of Android.

I've not actually heard of a single device maker that was denied access to Honeycomb, they were just given access in a non-open source manner, one that presumably involved signing a contract that prevents them using it on phones.

Not that I really want to be defending Google, I'm keen to see what happens when ICS is fully open and am disappointed that Honeycomb hasn't been released (yet). But "open" has become a battleground between Apple and Google and the quality of discourse has plummeted as a result of the ensuing misinformation an partisan sniping.

I find it bizarre that so many pixels are wasted examining exactly how open source Android is when the iPhone platform briefly made it acceptable for you not to be able to install apps on your own smartphone. A feature (or "freedom") that's been taken for granted since the devices were invented.

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

#73

Post by spot »

russellallen wrote: post #15

The rise of Linux on the server and desktop was wonderful to watch and I find it depressing that increasingly it looks like a single moment in time, a 90s thing like John Perry Barlow and uncensored net feeds. And Richard is right - the real threat to open systems is not so much the obviously closed systems like Apple but the almost open systems like Android that are open enough to release the valve on community pres…

> the real threat to open systems is not so much the obviously closed systems like Apple but the almost open systems like Android

bullshit. this is factionalism and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

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

#74

Post by MatthewPhillips »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #72
bad_user wrote: post #25

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 understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices . The stated reason was that 3.0 code was somewhere between broken and terrible on phone form factors. That's a much more understandable motivation for keeping things closed, both from a developer not wanting to embarrass yourself and as a platform builder not wanting to give the over-enthusiastic (or their customers) a bad experience of Android.…

Being open-source and wanting to control the experience are diametrically opposed ideas. When you choose to be open-source you are choosing to allow people to hack your code in whatever way they wish. That includes hacking it in a way that some might consider to be a poor experience. The fundamental value proposition of open-source is that some people will use your source poorly, but that on the aggregate good stuff will bubble up. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in open-source (which is fine).

I don't see anything in Andy Rubin's resume that suggests he's an open-source advocate. I'm not aware of any of his previous projects being open-source. Please call me out if this is incorrect.

Android is open-source in this same way id Tech is open-source. The current version is not, the previous versions may or may not be (in Android's case the 3 latest versions are not open-source). But eventually they'll open-source it, by the time it's no longer commercially viable.

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

#76

Post by rufibarbatus » 

  I.
This is a case where Stallman pushes the notion that software freedom === individual freedom. This notion, while defensible, is not necessarily true, and so the assessment that Android phones can't be said to respect my freedom sounds wild and passionate but while being hardly informative.

Freedom is one of those words which go deep with most people, but which for the same reason have come to mean a bunch of different, oft-contradictory things. (For some definition of freedom, the GPL can't be said to respect my freedom either.)

  II.
The problem here is that Google had commited itself to releasing Android's source code. Withdrawing from it is exactly the same kind of thing as Sony's withdrawing multiboot from the PlayStation: they sold us something and now they're taking it away.

In that sense is Android not respecting our freedom: some of us chose Android because of something that was being offered — something Google was commited to — and now that we've voluntarily locked ourselves into that platform, Google takes that decision factor away from us.

Stallman has this weird ability to get cherry-picked for his most passionate quotes. Although I not always agree with him, it's important that we go a bit deeper and try to figure out his actual reasoning.

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

#78

Post by spokengent »

icebraining wrote: post #54
spokengent wrote: post #49

Earlier 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.

> And my socks or bowl doesn't have the ability to record my personal calls or track my location.

How do you know? You're just more trusting of stuff that doesn't look like it has extra functionality. For all you know, bowl manufacturers could embed GPS tracking devices in there.

There comes a point where you just have to trust people selling you stuff won't be evil.

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

#79

Post by bad_user »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #72
bad_user wrote: post #25

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 understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices . The stated reason was that 3.0 code was somewhere between broken and terrible on phone form factors. That's a much more understandable motivation for keeping things closed, both from a developer not wanting to embarrass yourself and as a platform builder not wanting to give the over-enthusiastic (or their customers) a bad experience of Android.…

     so many pixels are wasted examining exactly how 
     open source Android is
From my perspective, Android is this kickass open-source technology that Google released with good intentions.

I would be pretty sad if that changed. Android in its current state (talking about 2.x) is disruptive. I hope they'll continue releasing the source code / keeping it open-source.

     But "open" has become a battleground between Apple 
     and Google and the quality of discource has 
     plummeted as a result of the ensuing misinformation 
     an partisan sniping.
I totally agree. Sorry for adding to the noise.

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

#80

Post by bad_user »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #74
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices . The stated reason was that 3.0 code was somewhere between broken and terrible on phone form factors. That's a much more understandable motivation for keeping things closed, both from a developer not wanting to embarrass yourself and as a platform builder not wanting to give the over-enthusiastic (or their customers) a bad experience of Android.…

Being open-source and wanting to control the experience are diametrically opposed ideas. When you choose to be open-source you are choosing to allow people to hack your code in whatever way they wish. That includes hacking it in a way that some might consider to be a poor experience. The fundamental value proposition of open-source is that some people will use your source poorly, but that on the aggregate good stuff…

     Android is open-source in this same way id Tech is 
     open-source
On the stuff released by id -- that's pretty awesome what they are doing there and a lot of enthusiasts and even small companies have built stuff on top.

Of course, Android is much more than a game engine and the difference between Google and id is that being open-source comes in Android's value proposition.

    it's no longer commercially viable
The Quake engines are still commercially viable for mobile phones. It also beats starting from scratch when low on budget.
Post reply on HN