Newest Google Android Cell Phone Contains Unexpected 'Feature' (New America) [LWN.net]

Newest Google Android Cell Phone Contains Unexpected 'Feature' (New America)

Posted Oct 7, 2010 16:13 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576)
In reply to: Newest Google Android Cell Phone Contains Unexpected 'Feature' (New America) by daniel
Parent article: Newest Google Android Cell Phone Contains Unexpected 'Feature' (New America)

to post comments

Newest Google Android Cell Phone Contains Unexpected 'Feature' (New America)

Posted Oct 7, 2010 16:40 UTC (Thu) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link] (2 responses)

This has nothing to do with Google. It's just yet another clueless story from a source who thinks that every Android phone is made by Google because they can't understand the idea of a free and open OS for smartphones.

It has everything to do with Google. The Google trademark is prominently emblazoned on the phone. I have one sitting beside me. This branding was clearly authorized and duly licensed. It has everything to do with perception of Google's true commitment, or lack of commitment, to open source and the developer community Google hopes will rocket this skinned version of Linux called Android to global domination.

The Meego folks must be having a great chuckle over this. Hi Arjan! Best of luck.

MeeGo

Posted Oct 7, 2010 16:42 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I see no evidence to suggest that MeeGo handsets will be any less user-hostile. Most of them will probably be just as locked down. What one can hope for is that - as with the Android handsets - somebody will toss us a mostly-open device every now and then to play with.

Newest Google Android Cell Phone Contains Unexpected 'Feature' (New America)

Posted Oct 7, 2010 18:35 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link]

Read the note about MeeGo in this blog post from a prominent member of the OSS security community:
http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/37782.html

Seems like more of the same if you ask me.

Is this a GPL violation?

Posted Oct 7, 2010 16:59 UTC (Thu) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link] (3 responses)

Could someone please explain to me in words of one syllable why this is not a violation of the GPL v2? From the license:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

That seems clear enough. Surely that would include the encryption key to sign the ROM image, without which modifications could hardly be made in the "preferred form".

Is this a GPL violation?

Posted Oct 7, 2010 18:07 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

GPLv2 talks about the software, you have the source code of the software as well as the binaries.

it doesn't say anything about the ability to run modified software on the original hardware (search for tivoization for more details)

this is one of the 'weaknesses' that GPLv3 was written to address, and one of the points where many people believe that the FSF is overreaching and are therefor not moving their software to GPLv3 from GPLv2

Is this a GPL violation?

Posted Oct 7, 2010 18:11 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

What's the point of having the source if you can't use it?

Is this a GPL violation?

Posted Oct 7, 2010 18:22 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

the disagreement and argument comes in over the definition of 'use'

you can use the source code in anything you want to write, that's not the same thing as saying that you can run any software you want to write on that particular piece of hardware.

many people (Linus included) see this as reasonable.

many other people (including RMS, and apparently you) don't.

personally, I do consider it reasonable. the hardware manufacturer is free to lock their hardware down. I am free to take the software and run it on different hardware. When there is competition (like in the Android phone market), I hope and expect that the drive over time will be to relax the lockdowns, or at least make it so that consumers can opt-out

remember that the same lockdown that prevents you from loading your own version of the software also helps protect the phone against rootkits. It's not the lockdown itself that's bad, the issue is over who controls the lockdown.

now, I also believe that I am free to modify hardware that I have purchased to disable any lockdown (and have done so on the several tivos that I own), I think the companies going after the modchip creators/sellers have no legitimate reason to do so, and I go out of my way to avoid buying from such companies.