Sean McNeil wrote: > Sorry for the additional post, but I wanted to clarify: > Jason wrote: >> Sean McNeil wrote: >> [...] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> Excuse me if I'm going a little out of topic, but, will some polemic >>>> features like [1] and [2] be removed, so the platform is a bit "more >>>> free"? >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://alsutton.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/android-the-not-so-open-open-platform/ >>>> >>>> >>> This is related to phones from companies that need or want to control >>> access to their hardware. Google has nothing to do with this except to >>> provide for security through certificates. This is a good idea and I >>> think OM will have one, but it doesn't mean there will be anything >>> closed source on the OM phones. It will remain open. >>> >>> >> >> We have different definitions of open, then. ;-) By yours, Tivo is >> open because it uses linux. By my definition, open means you can change >> the device to your liking. My main concern is this article: >> > > I think our definitions are pretty much the same. I am saying Android is > open just like Linux. I'm saying that just because Tivo uses Linux > doesn't mean it has to be completely open. Neither does anyone using > Android have to have their phone open.
Regrettably, from a business stance, I agree. However, from a "I paid for it, it's mine to do what I want with it" consumer pov, I don't like the _active_ blocking that's taking place in more and more products. Just void my warranty and move on. If I break it, I own both halves. > Google chose a more business friendly model, however, in that they use > the Apache license which is a lot like BSD. If I make a product, I don't > have to provide you with all the sources or changes I make to have > Android run on that product (unlike what GPL is attempting to do). > True. I guess what's more important to me is the ability to throw something else entirely on a device. If I don't like Android, I don't care if I have the source as long as I can rip it out and boot a vanilla linux kernel. A great example is the NSLU2. It was running a 2.4.x linux kernel. I have no idea what was on it, the first thing I did was solder on a pin header and access Reboot. Then I booted my first cross-compiled 2.6.x kernel (I forget which version it was) on it and never looked back. It makes it really hard (for us self-taught types) to learn if we can't swap out the kernel and build from there. Yes, openocd and jtags are next on the list. Then, building bootloaders... :-) > Regardless, OM will always make their code freely available and let you > put whatever software you like on their phone. This is the OM way. And I'm very thankful for it. Learning by example is a thousand times easier than poking in the dark. ;-) Jason. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
