

The Sad State of Open Source in Android Tablets - angusgr
http://projectgus.com/2010/07/open-source-in-android-tablets/

======
sprout
Couldn't the same sort of mass-lawsuit strategy recently used by certain
copyright holders work here? I mean, if it's really this widespread I could
see the FSF getting a court to issue an injunction against these devices being
sold, given the quantity of infringement going on (especially given that these
are companies who should have the resources to do so.)

~~~
angusgr
It's certainly plausible against the companies that aren't based in China, or
resellers of those products located outside of China.

Although only certain OSS rightsholders have been keen to pursue that avenue
in the past. Happily, at least two of the products on my list contain busybox,
and busybox have generally been keen to defend their rights in court, so there
is clear practical scope for this kind of thing.

------
ZeroGravitas
It strikes me that the most important part is the footnote:

 _"I have an email from VIA saying they will be proactively releasing the GPL
source code used in Wondermedia WM8505-based products like the Eken & Gome
tablets."_

If all these tablets (and phones) are based on a handful of chipsets then
getting that lower level code straight from the chipset manufacturer should be
a very important step in getting 3rd-party community distros onto the devices,
much like getting Ubuntu etc. onto an Atom based netbook. You'd still have to
watch out for SD card readers, touchscreens etc. but it's a great start.

------
goodness
I am more sad about the current state of android tablets. Are there any decent
tablets available? When I looked recently, I found a bunch of announcements
for stuff that was coming, like the Dell Streak. But the actual tablets
available look like knockoff Chinese junk. The Archos tablets seem to be the
only moderately respectable devices in the bunch, and those seem to have their
share of problems.

~~~
lulin
The Archos tablet is the same as the Rockchip aPad that is known under many
names: iWeb, iRobot, etc. I am doing a sort-of custom rom for the device and
it's really hard to do without the sources. I don't really understand the
chinese companies, though. Why would they not want people working for them,
for free?

~~~
angusgr
Is this true? Because the Archos 5 Internet Tablet source seems to be on their
site (I originally didn't find it because the naming is kind of weird, but
it's there!)

------
credo
I think angusr may be mistaken in his analysis.

The underlying kernel for Android is licensed under GPL, but the rest of
Android is licensed with the more more permissive Apache license.

My understanding is that Google explicitly chose the Apache license because it
is considered as more friendly to commercial development and proprietary
redistribution.

I'm assuming that the manufacturers will state that they have just extended
Android non-kernel components or (if kernel changes were required,) perhaps
that they've just implemented a new I/O abstraction layer that is independent
of the GPLd code

 _Followup to response: If my comments reflect a misconception, can you please
provide an alternate hypothesis for why Google chose the Apache license for
Android_

~~~
angusgr
This is a common misconception about GPL, but it is false.

To oversimplify Section 3 of the GPLv2: if you release a GPL licensed program
then you have to comply by making source code available or showing where
source is available, regardless of whether or not you have modified it.

I can assure you that Linux BSPs for most of the underlying systems included
in the list are not currently available anywhere (that's what the "source
available" column in the table is intending to show.) Although this is
actually unrelated to the issue of whether or not the company themselves are
violating GPL.

You're correct that (as the article says) quite a lot of functionality is spun
off into standalone kernel modules (not necessarily GPL) and the Android
layer, but this doesn't excuse the overall GPL violation.

~~~
loewenskind
>if you release a GPL licensed program then you have to comply by making
source code available or showing where source is available, regardless of
whether or not you have modified it.

This seems pretty arbitrary. If I haven't modified it can't I just point you
to the repository and revision I'm using?

~~~
angusgr
Pretty much. GPL 3(c) - I think - says that provided you got a binary version
with an attached notice telling you where to go to get the source code, you
can redistribute the same binary unmodified with the same notice.

------
flabbergasted
Mark Shuttleworth needs to step into the mobile platform realm with an ubuntu
type android distro.

