|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
To really avoid your binary blob problem, Android can't even use the Linux
kernel. As it seems with the Linux kernel, the interpretation of the GPL (by
Linus and some others) allows for binary blobs under some circumstance. Even if
Google were to chose a strong copyleft license for the project, it wouldn't help
in this situation at all. The only way for them to do so would be to write their
own system from scratch, kernel included, and license under a copyleft license
that insist clearly on everything being copyleft. I doubt many OEMs would touch
such a project, and it will probably flop for many other reasons :p.
What Google could have done was to get the OHA members to agree to not use
binary blobs or forced to provide ways for the blobs to work in systems like
Cynogenmod. Though I imagine that it probably would have become a deal-breaker
for many OEMs and chip design companies :p.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Right. It's all Google fault. NOT.
Alyun is using the Linux kernel, so it is
obligated to provide the source this very minute,
and really from back when they first started. I
take that to mean that if they failed to do so,
they no longer have a GPL license and must
stop distribution.
Google does provide source for Android. That's
exactly why Amazon if free to do its Kindle on
Android without joining OHA. It just downloads
and does what it pleases. And Acer could do the
same if it wants to go that route. But if it wants
to stay in the OHA, there is an agreement, one they
were about to violate, judging from Google's
statements. They do have to choose.
So far, Acer has decided to stay with Android, which
given the pirated software alleged to be in
the Alibaba fork would seem to be a wise choice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
This is 100% false.
"Google decided long ago that it didn't want to ensure
Android was open source.
It chose the Apache 2.0 license in order to get more
smartphone makers to come
on board. This is not a copyleft license. "
No, that is not true. Read groklaw where they state thy
simply got tired of waiting. This wasn't to prevent android
from being open source.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
"Because of this choice, Aliyun is legally allowed to keep its sources hidden.
Ok, they must provide the source for the Linux kernel if they are using Linux.
If instead they used BSD, I don't think they have any obligation to release
source at all."
This is what I think is my most serious concern with
the Android layer at all.
Yes, it is nothing but a cosmetic
layer, but is today an all too familiar layer...
For me, the only way
to turn the tide is to focus on the GPL v. 3 for the Android GUI
too...
Is that possible?! To turn the foul water
tide???!!!
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardmath on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
The tone of your post suggests that if Alibaba were to supply pirated
applications for Aliyun, a measure of blame ought to be placed on Google because
of the terms under which Android is made available to handset manufacturers. I
find that to be an incoherent position. In any case here are some ground facts
that I think we should be able to agree on.
1. Apache 2.0 is an open source license. You have a great deal of freedom as to
what you do with source provided on that basis, including making a GPL'd fork
with suitable attribution.
2. The Linux OS is GPL'd. If Aliyun uses Linux, Alibaba must comply with the
terms of the GPL.
3. If Alibaba claims Aliyun is open source but refuses to supply the source
code, then they are lying.
4. Google has contributed its OS patches back to Linux, and the use of
device-specific "blobs" extrinsic to the kernel does not differ from
what everyone else does in this regard.
---
"If FISA should ask, I was never here." Anonymous[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
Aliyun is an open-source based OS that is also an open
ecosystem that allows others to
host their mobile-enabled Web sites in our
cloud and we make those Web sites available to users who use Aliyun
OS
phones.So we are an ecosystem that includes other Internet companies, whereas
Android does not because it
provides apps through downloads. It's the crux of
the whole cloud vs. app debate. Cloud is open, apps system is
closed because it
is controlled by the operator of the apps marketplace. So you see: Two competing
ecosystems,
one that's open through the cloud, the other is
closed and restricts users to only the apps
that they want you to see.
[emphasis added] cnet
Seems obvious to me that the owner of a
cloud has the same powers of closure as the owner of a marketplace.
They even
say so, the others hosting their web sites in the Alibaba cloud have
their sites made available to
users of Aliyun phones. Open source based
may be a natural consequence of the Apache license. They further
describe their
runtime as Dalvik compatible .
Unfortunately my
Chinese language skills are about the same as my Java language
skills, there appear to be no English pages on
Aliyun development, but AFAICT
they place great emphasis on the cloud based nature of their system.
Google picked up their toys and went home from China. Alibaba stepped
into the gap. Alibaba's behaviour might
offend our western business ethics, but
it looks like their system is aimed at the Chinese domestic market which
Google
has walked away from. Companies who wish to have a foot in both markets, like
Samsung and Acer,
must be careful where they tread.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 03:53 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
No, the binary blobs are not Google's fault, they are the
fault of the manufacturer and it cannot be totally be
avoided since these manufacturers may have components in
their hardware that is NOT open sourced
Google provides all the necessary source to build a working
ROM, a fully working ROM, Cyanogen can't add support for
other devices because they don't have the closed sourced
bits that are needed for the fully working ROM to run on the
phone, no fault of Google, it rests entirely on the
manufacturers re: Sony just released the binary blobs needed
for a vanilla Android port to the Xperia S.
The only source code that manufacturers provide is what is
covered under GPL, the kernel, all manufacturers provide
that source and no more, it's funny that you used Samsung as
an example since the Exynos based devices are very hard for
Cyanogen and Teamhacksung to work with, the CM team have to
wait till Samsung releases a ROM to pull the binary blobs,
and even that sometimes does not work, they have to spend
hundreds of man hours reverse engineering and writing
wrappers, Samsung is actually one of the worst manufacturers
when it comes to getting Vanilla Android working [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
