That's because the carriers use the Apache licence. They modify the code so that you only receive binaries that are limited in functionalities. And since the hardware isn't open, you cannot change that. You can only change that if you have open hardware (ADP1, Freerunner, etc.)
On Mar 18, 5:11 pm, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > Linux is a bad example here. (BSD is better.) The devices all come with a > closed-source fork of "android". Try doing that with debian.... > > The other posters are correct, android is advertised (by google and others) > as having all of these things built in. (Easy low-hanging fruit: ANDROID > MARKET....) > > And its not "a completely open source OS" because -completely- is an > important word.. there is an open source android OS. Unfortunately, that is > not what is being shipped -by anyone-. What is being shipped is a closed > source OS with some example implementations. > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Guys, this is ridiculous. Android, like Linux, is a completely open > > source OS, and we are all running variants of it, with pieces of > > preinstalled software of varying openness and licenses. All the > > different RC updates are packaged for a specific client (T-Mobile), > > for their customer base. > > > Also, it gets said all the time on this list, but again: the G1 isn't > > Android. The Android codebase is a pure abstraction, whereas the G1 > > is a specific implementation of it, and is full of compromises (like a > > closed-source Market app, and not having root access). The developer > > phone has far fewer compromises, but even that has at least one (no > > access to copy-protected paid apps). > > > If you want a phone with no compromises, start a phone manufacturing > > company and make one. Thanks to Android, it's a whole lot easier to > > do exactly that. > > > -- Eric > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Muthu Ramadoss > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anything not opensource and not part of android must be yanked out of the > > > android website and must be part of the particular implemetation like g1, > > g2 > > > etc., > > > > On Mar 18, 2009 1:30 AM, "Eric Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well this reasoning has been brought up numerous times but I think it > > > is quite lame. Visit android.com. More specifically visit > > >http://www.android.com/about/videos.html#category=peeks > > > > Here you can see an "Android" phone boasting about features that > > > AREN'T android. This would be like going to Microsoft's website for > > > WindowsXP and having it boast about the features of the paid version > > > of Microsoft Office. > > > > If they aren't going to make these bits of code a part of Android, > > > they shouldn't show them off on any OHA or android.com website. They > > > should only be on T-Mobile's website for why you should buy a G1. And > > > they shouldn't be bragging about how there isn't a googlephone there > > > are many googlephones. Since it looks like the hardware doesn't exist > > > and if it did exist, wouldn't even have the full boasted software > > > stack. > > > > They want to eat their cake and have it too. "Android has all these > > > great features.. They just aren't actually provided" > > > > On Mar 15, 11:56 am, MrSnowflake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Even > > the > > > open source trees (mas... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
