Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Smartphones and freedom

[Karl Goetz]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:34:47 +0200
"A.J. Venter" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi guys,
> Been a while since I've been active on this list - but I would like
> your feedback about this matter firstly to verify some of the
> information I have, and to discuss how we as free software activists
> and developers ought to be responding to things as they stand.

Hi mate,
good to see you posting again.

> Currently it's heartening to see the growth of Google's Android

hm...
I can't disagree more. My view of android is that it was written from
the bottom up to be licenced under terms that don't require the users
freedom to be supported, and to maximise the ability to combine it with
proprietary software. The only component of what people get out of a
gnu/linux system in android is... linux.
Thats it.
The libc (bionic) was customised from a bsd libc, the java-like vm on
top (whos name escapes me right now) was custom written for it, and all
major software provided by google+partners was written with the apache
licence. TTBOMK There is no GNU on the device.

> platform in the smartphone space - modern day smartphones are, for all
> matter of practicality - small computers and the same issues of
> freedom we see on computers must apply there. I say this is heartening
> as Android is currently the most free smartphone operating system to
> make any impact on the market. OpenMoko is more free I believe but
> limited to a single device, not widely available (I am not aware of
> anybody selling them in my country for example) and very expensive due
> to the lack of network operator contracts.

Theres nothing inherently 'single device' about it, its just primarily
developed for the Neo.

> So looking at android - the OS as it comes from google has four major
> freedom issues that stand out I'll look at them separately.
> 
> The first is google's own non-free application stack.

[snip]

> The second issue is that of drivers. It is my understanding that it is
> currently impossible to do a blob-free android version as most phones
> contain hardware without free drivers and would not be usable at all
> with it. What makes this worse is that I further understand this is

Isn't this the case for all phones (android or not).

> not fully changeable. Specifically it's my understanding that the
> current GSM patents require all phone manufacturers to buy a license
> in order to make their radio controller chips and that this license
> specifically prohibits the release of driver source code. I hope I
> understand this wrong, but if I'm right  then we effectively have a
> hardware patent that means no phone OS ("smart" or otherwise) can be
> entirely blob free until these patents expire (which is not for some
> time). Can anybody perhaps shed more light on this ?

The OS can be free if the firmware is in the radio controller, not
loaded by the OS. This doesn't remove the firmware, just moves it so
its not the softwares 'fault'. There is a free firmware in development,
but its not stable yet.

> The third is apps.

[snip]
This isn't a win over any of our existing distributions running on a
mobile device.

> The final and perhaps biggest problem right now is that even though
> there are fully (or a near as patent law allows depending on how
> correct my understanding in point two is) free android mods available
> - these cannot run on all phones. Most phone manufacturers are
> actively trying to lock their phones down to only running their own
> versions. Most of these phones have got published mechanisms by which
> the locks can be bypassed (as is done for example on most HTC phones)

My understanding is that HTC has always had a modding community, I
expect they know locking them too tightly would detract from their
market.

> so it's not a major issue yet but Motorola has a series of phones now
> that are effectively impossible to root as a physical chip on the
> device prevents it from booting if the OS is not authorized by
> Motorola. Effectively they've tivoized the phone. Sadly since
> android's linux kernel has not adopted GPLv3 there is nothing at the

You mean 'Since *nothing* in android is GPL3.'

> kernel level that stops them doing so. It would perhaps be interesting
> to see if any of the code android contains is GLPv3 licensed, if so -

I believe they went to lengths to minimise the GPL code in android to
start with, so they'd have to have stuffed up pretty badly to include
GPL3 stuff (then again, its explicitly apache compatible now...).

> this could allow for an effectively legal way to shut down the
> practice (or at least force them to replace said code, which may be
> enough motivation to rather just comply). That said - I do believe

[...]

> failed) - and indicate which (if any) phones actively encourages and
> hacking and does not contain restrictions on it. I believe the Nexus
> One was fully unrestricted - but sadly it's not on the market anymore.
> I'm not aware of any others but I think there may be some out there ?

Nexus one is a developer phone. it makes no sense for it to be locked
down.

[...]

> market - and currently seems to be less likely to gain the kind of
> industry infiltration that Android has - if only because Android has
> successfully gotten most phone manufacturers on-board and this in turn
> has led to network-operator (a crucial price management aspect in the
> phone market).

I'm concerned that the reason for this is the ease of removing freedom
from users.

> I wouldn't think of this mail as a proper statement of facts, rather
> as a question-set and discussion starter (I did look to try and find
> any other references on the topic but came up empty handed - there
> doesn't seem to be any FSF position papers or similar available, of
> course I may just have failed to find them - any such sources would be
> useful). What is the community's current feelings about this growing
> side of computing - and how are we to respond to it to protect and
> promote user freedoms here ?

I think we should be trying to ensure GNU - and systems like it - are
able to run on these devices, and perform as people need.
thanks,
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature