The request to someone who knows better: Please provide a link to a source
outlining the functionality of a phone that has nothing but the stock Android
base that Google provides! I can't find a good example at the moment. I'd
specifically like an example of a Stock Android phone that is not locked down,
nor has extra apps locked in by the manufacturer as an example to blow away the
FUD inherent in the post I'm responding to.
The the parent
poster:
You state a lot of obvious things, but I think your intent is
clear in your final statement. A conclusion that can not be logically formed
from your previous statements.
IANAL, but to cover your points from my
knowledge base:
A: Yes, the source code for the kernel is GPL protected, as
a result "Google has been faithful in always making their linux kernel changes
publicly available" - in other words, Google actually complies with the license
terms of software they make use of... unlike Microsoft who has to be forced
to.
B: Google choose to protect the Android code using the Apache
license. That's a permissive license along the lines of the BSD license. The
Copyright owner has the right to license their work under any license they want
including multiple licenses if they so choose. What they can't do is revoke the
license from someone who has not breached the license.
C: Yes, in order
to make use of Android, the manufacturers are required to meet the terms of the
Apache license. Those obligations don't meet the sharing obligations required
of the GPL.
And now for the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt you have been trying
to build:
the manufacturers will almost always be forced to add on
to it
I call FUD. Please provide proof via links to other
licensing or agreements where the manufacturers - like Samsung - are forced to
add on to Android - like the Samsung Apps.
Your conclusion that the
Apache license "forces" someone to "add on to the product or locking it
down1" is totally without a basis in logic let alone fact. A person
can make use of Apache/BSD protected code and release that code (The Free
Software Foundation with authoring GNU code) or said person can choose to use
such protected code and lock it down entirely (Microsoft).
Microsoft
wasn't "forced" to use the GNU network stack and lock it down anymore then phone
manufacturer's are "forced" to lock down Android.
As a result, your
conclusion is: FUD!
1: You didn't come straight out and
say Google is forcing manufacturers to lock down Android phones, but that's
inherent in all else you say combined with your conclusion. As evidence of the
Manufacturers - Not Google's - desire to lock down phones I present Motorola (now Owned by Google) starting to provide a means
of Motorola Phone Owners a method to unlock their phones.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
