On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:56:33PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Am 02.12.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Augustin Trancart: > > FWIW from what I've read on Reddit, I have the feeling that it's > > generally not because of device-specific base image people cannot > > update, but because they have locked bootloader (Orange Kliff, Fx0 > > etc..), preventing every custom build to even run on their platform. > > Yes, OK. But that's a problem of these specific devices, not something > that Mozilla has much control over.
I disagree. > > We need bootloader unlock tools for these phones. Does Mozilla have > > the power to do something about it? Yes, they do. Mozilla controls the "Firefox OS" trademark [1] so they can prevent manufacturers from using "Firefox OS" on their device or in advertising unless the manufacturer follows certain guidelines for their device. Indeed, Mozilla says you can't use the Firefox OS name or logo unless you sign a partner licensing agreement. [2] I did a brief search and found this document, which appears to be at least part of a partner licensing agreement (perhaps someone from Mozilla can confirm this): https://mobilepartners.mozilla.org/media/uploads/Market/CertificationOverview/branding-requirements-poweredby-v1.0b.pdf . While it does not explicitly state that manufacturers must provide an unlocked bootloader, it does say that "You have to make sure you are complying with the open source licenses under which the B2G code is distributed." Since the B2G code includes the kernel named Linux, which is licensed under GPLv2, manufacturers must provide "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of [Linux]". This could be interpreted to mean that they must provide an unlocked bootloader, since it may be difficult to install a new kernel without this. To summarize: A. Mozilla probably already requires unlocked bootloaders by virtue of their partner licensing agreement, as discussed above. They are simply choosing not to enforce this. We should encourage them to enforce this point. B. If Mozilla doesn't yet require unlocked bootloaders, they could easily add that as a requirement in their partner licensing agreement. It would be best if they were explicit about this regardless, and we should encourage them to do this as well. So Mozilla can and should do something about the locked bootloader problem, both for the community and to ensure the Firefox OS brand reflects the openness Mozilla strives for. Denver http://ossguy.com/ 1. https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/list/ 2. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/identity/firefoxos/branding/#versus _______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
