On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Monnier <[email protected]>wrote:
> > This is only going to go in circles, but again, complaining about Apple > > won't change a thing. What are you going to tell people? Move to > another > > smartphone that doesn't allow tethering and voip? What are you actually > > going to achieve by trying to educate people about Apple? > > Raising awareness about the problem. Until people are aware of the > problem, there's little hope to see significant competitors that provide > the freedom we want. > But there currently can't be any competitors that provide the freedom we want. > Just becuse there is currently no alternative, doesn't mean we shouldn't > critize what there is, right? > Absolutely. But in the end you have to recognize that a great deal of what you are criticizing is out of that providers control. If the underlying problem was dealt with, a lot of these issues would work themselves out. > [ BTW, I'm using a New FreeRunner, so I know there is an alternative, > but I also know the problems with which it comes. ] > No carrier would package such an alternative, so no large phone maker would produce it. > > >> >> > The firmware does not have anything to do with Android, only the > phone > >> >> > makers. Google/Android doesn't control the phone makers, and a > phone > >> >> > maker is free to make the device as hackable as they like. > >> >> At least Google makes no effort to keep the end products free, > >> > In what sense? > >> In the obvious sense. In which sense have they made efforts to keep the > >> end products free? > > Which end products? Android, Chrome? What exactly is it you want, search? > If > > it's obvious then you can give plenty of concrete examples. > > That's the thing: I can't think of any sense in which they have made > such an effort. So, obviously, that means that from my point of view > they haven't made any such effort. > http://code.google.com/opensource/ Obviously with a mix of opensource/free software licenses. Again what exactly do you want from the end product to make it more free? > > > If your point is that even if you never sign into the phone, or even > > if the entire market place can be removed from the platform, the > > platform is compromised, then really there is no point in us > > discussing this any further. > > I don't care about the platform itself, as much as about the specific > holes that it has and that we want users to be more aware of them and to > learn to treat them as unacceptable. > The entire basis for this discussion was the comment: "I wouldn't count on Android: it's open source and couldn't care less about users's freedom (at least most/all Android phones seem to follow similar locking ideas as the iPhone's, so in the end you end up just as free as if it were an iPhone)." This specific comment is directed at the platform. Even if someone were to accept that Google was supportive of the Open Source movement but not the Free Software movement, the point is that Android is covered under a Free Software license and anyone is free do to with it as they please (including getting it running on your FreeRunner http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/). > > >> I definitely don't buy that argument. Maybe they can use it to protect > >> their ass if/when they mess up, but then so what: they could do so in > many > >> other ways as well. It's not a valid excuse. > > Well then I doubt we'll ever agree on this particular point. > > I will say that if this didn't exist, and Android did take off, there > would > > be a lot of people arguing about how insecure Android is because of the > > random viruses/trojans/phishing that can be found in the marketplace > (which > > has no barrier of entry). > > My point is that there are many other ways to protect it, such as > barriers of entry. > This is Apple's model. As in they approve everything that goes into the market place. That way you would never know about a application not being allowed on the market, because it would never get approved. Furthermore, it would be pretty easy to write a trojan/etc and wrap it into another application so that Apple/Google/etc won't even detect it. > > >> They could have used a license that would make Android code only > >> distributable in such a way that the firmware can be replaced (no > >> tivo-ization). They could have not written the backdoor code to remove > >> apps remotely. ... > > But then no one would use it. > > Not necessarily. If it has sufficiently many other advantages. > In practice, the possibility of installing a different firmware doesn't > imply that more than a few marginal users will do so. > Again look at the industry. It's not the handset makers that would never allow this. > > > Your insisting that this is a problem with the platform providers, > > when it's clearly not. > > Not, I don't fault them only, far from that. But they're clearly part > of the problem. > Anyone that uses a phone they received as part of a contract is part of the problem. I can't see how a platform provider can be held accountable, is there a solution you can come up with so a platform provider can fix the issue? > > >> >> Of course, none of this is a big surprise: Google has always been > very > >> >> supportive of Open Source but not of Free Software. > >> > I think this is redefining "Free Software". > >> No, it's just insisting on the difference between Open Source and > >> Free Software. > > So clearly I meant this regarding Android, but what part of the Apache 2 > > license is not Free Software? Free Software has nothing to do with a > remote > > kill switch, or forcing handset providers to use open firmware. > > I said "Google has always been very supportive of Open Source but not of > Free Software". This doesn't say anything about whether it writes Free > Software, but whether it shares its goals. Free Software has everything > to do with a remote kill switch, since a remote kill switch is opposed > to the goals of Free Software, which aim to let end users have control > over their data, their computing needs, their computing devices (the > Free Software licenses are but one of the tools to try and get there, > which happens to be shared with the Open Source philosophy although this > latter one doesn't have such freedom as a stated goal). > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html > > Fair enough, but attaching the word "movement" to the end of those statements makes them far clearer. > > Stefan > _______________________________________________ > mlug mailing list > [email protected] > https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca >
_______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
