
Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom” - dkd903
http://digitizor.com/2011/09/20/richard-stallman-android-free-software/
======
0x12
This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the
(guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-
fre...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-
software-stallman), the man raises some interesting points and is _not_ just
about your inability to inspect the source.

The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against
the article but that refuse to read it for some reason):

\- "Google's Andy Rubin put up a proof that Android was open, then subsequent
releases of android were put out in a way that this proof no longer held, so
by googles own definition android is currently not an open platform"

\- "Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0
(aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public.
Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from
Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple."

\- "Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software
portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Even though the Android phones
of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they
cannot be said to respect your freedom."

\- "The phone network firmware comes pre-installed. If all it did was sit
there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist
that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook pre-
installed firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference
to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit.

Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious
features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented.

On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn
the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On
some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory,
and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed.
With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware,
and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network."

Take issue with what the man said, not with the man.

My personal take on all this is that if you base your offering on a huge
amount of open source that you should keep the spirit of those whose code
enables you to run your business alive and respond in kind.

~~~
enjo
The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is
that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released
all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and
related bug-fixes.

It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete".
It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were
pushing out terrible experiences on tablets using older Android versions.
Honeycomb is merely a stop-gap to the next version (the upcoming ice-cream
sandwich).

Google has been resistant to release the source precisely because I think they
want to control (as much as possible) the proliferation of that code into
devices that it can manage the bug fixing and release constraints on. That's
why basically Google partners are the only ones with access to Honeycomb.

If the new version is released and the source code isn't, then I think RMS has
a point. Ice cream sandwich better be "complete" and see a commiserate source-
code push to go along with it. If not, Android has lost it's open source
credibility. I think it is too early to make that call, however.

*disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge or any way to verify that my speculation is accurate:)

~~~
redthrowaway
RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0
nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence
here, maintaining the appearances of OSS while not actually providing a
development trunk. Google may claim openness in the face of this, but open
without source is closed. You can't claim to be FOSS while only releasing
bins.

~~~
Tichy
Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.

~~~
jstedfast
Is software freedom defined differently on phones vs tablets?

Why does Android 3.x not being for phones make any difference at all to this
conversation?

~~~
Tichy
Because the title is "Android phones...", and also the majority of Android
devices being sold are phones. You definitely have the option to get a non-
Honeycomb Android phone right now.

Afaik Honeycomb was never meant for phones, either.

~~~
jstedfast
Okay, that may be but it has no impact on the "freeness" of Android 3.x.

------
russellallen
The rise of Linux on the server and desktop was wonderful to watch and I find
it depressing that increasingly it looks like a single moment in time, a 90s
thing like John Perry Barlow and uncensored net feeds.

And Richard is right - the real threat to open systems is not so much the
obviously closed systems like Apple but the almost open systems like Android
that are open enough to release the valve on community pressure but that
aren't open enough to give us real freedom and control.

On the plus side, things are still in flux. For example, Inferno is now
available to run on top of the free Android Linux kernel: [http://www.android-
dev.ro/2011/09/17/hellaphone-inferno-os-f...](http://www.android-
dev.ro/2011/09/17/hellaphone-inferno-os-for-android-phones-no-java-included/)

~~~
spot
> the real threat to open systems is not so much the obviously closed systems
> like Apple but the almost open systems like Android

bullshit. this is factionalism and letting the perfect be the enemy of the
good.

------
biafra
I think Stallman raises some interesting and valid points (in his article in
the guardian. It is worth reading it to the end). For example this:

"On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn
the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On
some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory,
and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed.
With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware,
and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network."

I think we need phones with free and open source GSM/UMTS aka Baseband stacks.

One project helping with this is OsmocomBB <http://bb.osmocom.org/trac/>

~~~
leoc
See also: UEFI.

------
5hoom
Ahh, the second controversial Richard on HN today ;)

Love him or hate him, Richard Stallman is nothing if not consistent.

The fact is that he is right on this issue. At this time Honeycomb is not open
source software.

I'm a big fan of google, and as the story says Android is the best of a bad
bunch (with regards to software freedom), but it's good that we have people
like Stallman who can give us cause to stop & take a reality check (or
unreality check, depending on your point of view...).

~~~
notatoad
he's right, but in the wrong way. honeycomb is not open source software, but
that does not mean that android is not open source software. honeycomb is a
dead fork of the android project, it has no future. the android trunk is as
open as it has ever been.

~~~
tadfisher
It is not as 'open' as most software projects. They develop in a closed
environment and dump the results on the community. There are long-standing
bugs that have been fixed in community distros such as Cyanogenmod, yet the
Android team doesn't accept patches, because they're busy working on the next
code dump.

At Google, there is no 'upstream'.

~~~
notatoad
its not as open as community projects, but it is still open source. this is
the sort of attitude that makes companies turn away from community
development: the. sense of entitlement users get.

they develop a great system, give it away for free, and publish the source.
isn't that enough, do they really need to follow your preferred development
pattern too?

if you want to evangelize software freedom, how about commending Google for
being as open as they are, and criticising the sellers of totally closed
systems.

------
biafra
The original article by Stallman is here:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-
fre...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-
software-stallman)

------
flarg
After years of reading Stallman haters and lovers I'm sorry to say that he is
almost always right - good intentions never lead to good outcomes; only good
actions from the outset. Google's failure to release the source for Android 3x
maybe with good intentions, but it also pushes the envelope of what is
acceptable for next time - which will probably be something like not releasing
the source code for a year 'just to allow us to make some money'. Google
effectively owns the internet for a lot of us, so they need to behave very
very well - they need to do what Stallman says.

~~~
ubernostrum
_After years of reading Stallman haters and lovers I'm sorry to say that he is
almost always right_

I frequently disagree with RMS' positions. Not because they're logically
inconsistent, but because they're based on premises I don't accept. I think a
lot of people are the same way; we can recognize an argument that "if you
accept X, then Y", and say "OK, but I don't accept X".

In this case I think he's reaching the same conclusion I would, but via a
different route (albeit one with some of the same stops along the way). So in
this case I'd agree with his conclusion.

------
erikpukinskis
At the risk of getting downvoted for being meta-, can I remind people that
links like this need to be flagged? The Guidelines clearly state:

 _"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they
found on another site, submit the latter."_ \-
<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

If you see a link to a blog post like this, which is just a bad summary of an
original source ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-
fre...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-
software-stallman)), please flag the summary link on HN, copy the URL of the
original source, and paste it into the HN "submit" page (there's usually no
need to fill in a title). That will automatically upvote the original source,
giving it exposure and improving the quality of discussion.

Obviously if the secondary source is an important editorial piece in it's own
right, it's fine.

~~~
chalst
...which had an earlier HN story,
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3013622>

------
tarkin2
I can understanding Google wanting control over who implements a not-quite-
ready Android version. But, purely from a development perspective, if Ice-
Cream Sandwich isn't fully OSS, it will decrease my enthusiasm for the
platform enormously.

One of my main reasons for investing time into Android is to eventually
involve myself in the sources (and not just the Kernel sources), for fun,
profit and security. If they take that away, they'd be little reason for
choosing it over the iPhone.

------
guelo
My complete speculation as to why Honeycomb wasn't open sourced is Amazon.
Amazon was forced to use an older Android for their tablet instead of being
able to take advantage of Google's tablet work.

~~~
bad_user
If Google didn't want for others to "take advantage" of its work, then they
shouldn't have released Android as open-source in the first place.

In spite of people telling that Android is closed because it has a closed
development branch, the one thing that you can do with open-source is to fork
it if you're not happy with the current status quo.

But to fork Android 3.0 -- that's exactly what you cannot do. And that's
definitely not open anymore.

I'm doing some apps for Android currently. I'm only testing on Android 2.2 /
2.3 -- that's because if I wanted a closed platform, I would prefer iOS
instead.

When they'll release 3.x as open-source, then I'll be happy again.

------
jerrya
All else being equal, Richard Stallman took a complex topic and made it very
clear. Which I find very impressive and also helps in making his essay very
persuasive. I wonder how long it took him to write and rewrite his essay.

------
known
Open source promotes open competition. Commercial entities do not like
competition.

------
RyanMcGreal
Why not link to the original source?

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-
fre...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-
software-stallman)

------
rufibarbatus

      I.
    

This is a case where Stallman pushes the notion that _software freedom_ ===
_individual freedom_. This notion, while defensible, is not necessarily true,
and so the assessment that Android phones can't be said to respect _my_
freedom sounds wild and passionate but while being hardly informative.

Freedom is one of those words which go deep with most people, but which for
the same reason have come to mean a bunch of different, oft-contradictory
things. (For some definition of freedom, the GPL can't be said to respect my
freedom either.)

    
    
      II.
    

The problem here is that Google had commited itself to releasing Android's
source code. Withdrawing from it is _exactly_ the same kind of thing as Sony's
withdrawing multiboot from the PlayStation: they sold us something and now
they're taking it away.

 _In that sense_ is Android not respecting our freedom: some of us chose
Android because of something that was being offered — something Google was
commited to — and now that we've voluntarily locked ourselves into that
platform, Google takes that decision factor away from us.

Stallman has this weird ability to get cherry-picked for his most passionate
quotes. Although I not always agree with him, it's important that we go a bit
deeper and try to figure out his actual reasoning.

------
dspeyer
Why is this being published now? Honeycomb was ages ago. Gingerbread (which is
free) still dominates, and Ice Cream Sandwich (which will be free) will be out
soon.

------
leppie
I wonder how many bootloaders and recovery images (specifically the commercial
ones) uses the Linux kernel for it?

------
voidr
Quotation taken out of context. The article reasonably explains it's point.

------
httpitis
What would make Google release the source?

------
vegai
Which ones do, I wonder?

~~~
biafra
All those with a locked bootloader.

BTW: Is there a complete list which ones have an unlocked or unlockable
bootloader?

I know about the following:

\- Android Dev Phone 1 (HTC Dream)

\- Ion (HTC Magic)

\- Motorola Droid (unfortunately not the Milestone)

\- Nexus One (HTC Passion)

\- Nexus S (relockable) (Samsung Crespo)

~~~
vegardx
I think we're moving towards unlocked phones. Both HTC and Samsung have sent
signals that they want to open up their phones. And then we're talking about
drivers and specifications. Everything that can get them one step ahead of
Apple. Also, it seem to be deemed "cool" to be open, so they might just spin
it to marketing.

Sadly I don't know if this will be the case for US, where the operators have
way too much control over the devices. Luckily I live in Europe, outside of
EU. :-)

------
ShawnJG
I am a bit disappointed that Google has seemingly reversed itself on its
openness. While I would want someone poking around in code but I felt wasn't
my best work, I feel that this excuse for Google is dubious at best. I believe
it is done to stifle competition. They say they want to protect users
experience, which you might be able to believe on face value if it weren't for
the fact that anyone who had the skills to manipulate the code would
inherently know that they are going to change the intended "Google
experience". This is not something that a hacker would hold Google responsible
for. If he actually could start the glass of milk you don't get mad at the cow
because your milk is brown instead of white! Google is afraid that if they
allow their code to be in the wild, hackers innovations will outstrip their
own. They forgot what made their platform so attractive in the first place.
Android OS benefited immensely the beginning from being open source people
added features there were leaps and bounds ahead of Apple IOS. For people who
are well-informed and made a comparison between the two a no-brainer. If they
continue to do this it'll be like going to her door and closing it. And I will
be their fault because I've been around long enough to know that there are
infinite pathways innovations can take.

------
mkup
GPLv2 says:

\----citation----

2\. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you
also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work
that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is
derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no
charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the
modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must
cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright
notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you
provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these
conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
(Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print
such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print
an announcement.)

 _These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License,
and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the
right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on
the Program._

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with
the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
License.

\----end-of-citation----

We know that:

1\. Android is a collective work based on Linux

2\. Non-Linux part of Android is not distributed as a separate work in binary
form. In binary form both parts of Android (Linux and non-Linux) are
distributed together as a whole.

3\. According to GPLv2, " _when you distribute the same sections as part of a
whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it_ "

So Google is clearly violating GPL here.

~~~
daniel_solano
From the kernel's COPYING file:

    
    
        NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs
        that use kernel services by normal system calls - 
        this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, 
        and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived
        work".
    

As I read it, the non-Linux part of Android is entirely in user-space, and
thus exempt from the terms of the GPL with respect to the kernel.

~~~
mkup
OK, thanks for clarification. I didn't know about this special exception.

------
jarin
Stallman never misses an opportunity to bring up the Linux vs. GNU/Linux
distinction.

~~~
arkx
Carthago delenda est.

------
Tichy
Are there Android phones with Android 3 (Honeycomb) yet? Because the article
talks only about Honeycomb, so I think it is simply incorrect...

As for locking the devices, unfortunately "free" also means that device
vendors are free to lock the devices. If you care, don't get such a device (my
philosophy: stick to the Nexus line to be safe).

~~~
darklajid
No, locking down stuff like that is not 'freedom' in his (and mine) book.
Locking down a device so that the _owner_ of said device cannot mess with it
as he likes after paying you is not related to freedom. It removes freedom.

~~~
Tichy
Yes, but it is not Android doing the locking down, it is individual vendors.
So Android is not to blame for that.

Edit: so your complaint is that Android id not on the GPL? Or why the
downvotes? Indeed, the GPL would be more free in a way, more restricted in
another way.

~~~
pornel
> Indeed, the GPL would be more free in a way, more restricted in another way

True, and RMS is concerned with freedom for end-users above freedom for phone
vendors and network operators.

GPL v3 with anti-tivoisation clauses seem to be exactly designed to disallow
"malicious" firmware some Android phones have.

~~~
Tichy
Sure, but Google never claimed to be on the GPL.

------
danielhunt
...Do Not Respect Your _Software_ Freedom.

Note that (pretty important) word left out there? Yeah. Linkbait.

~~~
angrycoder
Its Richard Stallman, did you really think the article was going to be about
your freedom to eat tacos?

------
spokengent
I for one love not having my freedom respected. It means good products that
work.

~~~
danssig
Ah great, so you're an iPhone user to?

~~~
spokengent
No, I've had an iPhone, and had android phones. At the moment I mainly use
android.

My criteria for buying a phone does not feature "Does it respect my freedom".
As usual Stallman is on a different planet to the rest of us, who just want
shit to work.

Does Stallman only buy socks as long as he has full manufacturing instructions
included? If he buys a bowl, does he insist they include the mould used to
create it, as well as all the paints, a DVD documenting how it was made etc.

He's entertaining, but not much more than that.

~~~
icebraining
* the rest of us*

Speak for yourself, not for everyone else. I rather have free even if it means
less functional.

And my socks or bowl doesn't have the ability to record my personal calls or
track my location. Comparing the two is asinine.

~~~
w0utert
While I respect your opinion (everyone is entitled to have one), I hope you
realize that it's not hard to come up with other examples of technology that
is not 'open' in any way, yet could be used for malicious or undesirable
purposes, right?

I mean, I love open-source and everything, but I honestly don't give a sh_t
whether the 'firmware' of the plane I'm flying, the playback device and
amplifier pumping out my tunes, the microwave oven that heats my lasagna, the
ECU controlling my cars engine or the software in my satnav system is 'open'
and 'free'. All of those could have potential privacy or safety implications.
For probably around 99.9% of all people using cell-phones, the exact same
reasoning holds for how they think about them, and how they would prefer it to
just work well and have more functionality, instead of carrying this (to them)
abstract notion of being 'open'. If 'closed' means they get a better product
(which is very often the case), then closed is better for them.

Also, you are fooling yourself if you honestly believe that 'open' is a
guarantee for 'safe', 'secure' or 'thrustworthy'. Open-source software has
exploits and security holes just like proprietary software. Maybe less, but
let's not pretend 'open' is equivalent to 'safe'. You can never be 100% sure
the source code you are looking at is actually exactly the same as what is
running on this piece of hardware you bought anyway, even though the
manufacturer says so.

I kind of agree with what spokengent said. FOSS has many advantages, but RMS
is really taking things too far, as he has always done, pretending FOSS _only_
has advantages and no downsides, and proprietary software is _always_ bad and
evil. He doesn't seem to understand there are many devices and applications
that are simply incompatible with the FOSS way of doing things, for various
reasons that have nothing to do with privacy, freedom or security.

RMS is a FOSS absolutist, advocating FOSS like it's a religion, not a way of
doing things that works really well for many things, but maybe not so well for
others.

Whether FOSS works well for cell-phones is up for debate, personally I don't
really believe in it, and the way the Android ecosystem is developing and the
strange sem-open development model behind is, is only confirming this, at
least for now.

~~~
icebraining
_I hope you realize that it's not hard to come up with other examples of
technology that is not 'open' in any way, yet could be used for malicious or
undesirable purposes, right?_

Sure. And if I could, I'd buy open versions of them too.

 _mean, I love open-source and everything, but I honestly don't give a sh_t
whether the 'firmware' of the plane I'm flying, the playback device and
amplifier pumping out my tunes, the microwave oven that heats my lasagna, the
ECU controlling my cars engine or the software in my satnav system is 'open'
and 'free'._

Well, then we're different. I give a shit. Not enough to refuse to use a
closed version, of course.

 _For probably around 99.9% of all people using cell-phones, the exact same
reasoning holds for how they think about them, and how they would prefer it to
just work well and have more functionality, instead of carrying this (to them)
abstract notion of being 'open'. If 'closed' means they get a better product
(which is very often the case), then closed is better for them._

Possibly. But that still leaves 0.1% of people. And that includes me.

And 'better' is hard to tell. How much money and effort was spent rewriting
stuff because it was tied to closed platforms? People are usually bad at
looking at the long term or at evaluating the far reaching consequences of
such decisions, in my opinion.

------
outside1234
i want to like rms but you get the sense that he doesn't live in the real
world whenever you read his stuff.

I mean, seriously, Android is about a lightyear more open than iOS and there
are super good reasons Honeycomb is not out. An OEM in China would promptly
put out some sort of crappy phone that uses it and wrecks the Android brand.

~~~
lurker19
What has RMS written that is not real? He knows that some non-free software is
compelling and profitable, but he argues that in the long run of is
unstainable. And when you look at Lion and Metro and Google Apps' only half-
baked Data Liberation Front and compare to what RMS wrote 20 years ago, it is
clear he is very much in the real world, unfortunately.

Is Android the least evil? Probably. But it is still not free. And RMS doesn't
say you mustn't Android and whatever else; he just days that you _shouldn't_
if you want to protect and promote software freedom, and he is a living model
of an example free software lifestyle, for better or worse.

~~~
sliverstorm
_he just days that you shouldn't if you want to protect and promote software
freedom_

So what phone do I use then? There's a couple select phones that might
qualify, but they are fringe, expensive and impractical.

This is what your parent is referring to. When people talk about how rms
doesn't "live in the real world" they are coming from a "people who, at the
end of the day, have to get sh*t done" point of view. Both viewpoints have
their merits.

------
rodh257
We get it, this has been discussed over and over, Android 3.0 is not open
source because the source was not released, can we move on now? Google will be
releasing the source code to Ice Cream Sandwich, but for now, Android 3.0 is
not open source. We didn't need Richard Stallman to tell us that.

~~~
RexRollman
So long as Google keeps referring to Android as open, I think the point needs
to be brought up.

------
bleakgadfly
If we'd follow everything Stallman said we'd all be "surfing the web" one
email at a time
([http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134336/focus=1...](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134336/focus=134979))

~~~
lurker19
Are you trying to discredit him by making fun of the way he organizes his
reading to optimize his productive time and spotty Internet connectivity when
traveling?

Instapaper, much beloved in these parts, is a fancy modern take on the same
idea as RMS's web-to-email system.

~~~
wmf
Or you could see it as a symptom of how much RMS has isolated himself from the
world and how that hurts his campaign. Years after AJAX had become boring, RMS
finally discovered that JavaScript exists and wrote a rant about how evil it
is. When someone suggested that Emacs switch to Git, RMS basically said "I'm
not going to read any Git documentation, someone please explain it to me". I
wouldn't be surprised if he discovered the whole Honeycomb debate just in time
for it to be over. The world is moving on and he's paying no attention.

