

Skyhook: Google forced Motorola to delay the Droid X  - azharcs
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/17/skyhook-google-forced-motorola-to-drop-our-location-service-de/

======
Zak
Honestly, I'd like to see Google use this lever against carriers and
manufacturers a bit more to ban any or all of the following:

* Locked bootloaders

* Disabled or substituted major features (e.g. wifi tethering)

* Apps that can't be uninstalled

* Skins that can't be disabled

* Proprietary drivers

* SIM locking

I'm aware that Google does not yet have the clout to pull off most of the
above yet, but maybe someday.

~~~
mindslight
Google isn't going to rock the carriers' boat, but any significant kernel
contributor could step up to the plate and fix the locked bootloader problem
at any time.

~~~
tomjen3
Unfortunately not, since the Kernel is GPL2.0, not GPL3. GPL2.0 doesn't have
anti-tivorization features.

~~~
mindslight
Explicit ones, no.

Tivoization certainly violates the spirit of GPL2, as well as the letter. From
GPL2:

> _The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
> modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
> the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
> definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
> installation of the executable._

1\. the signature is a derivative work of the GPLed work.

2\. modification is the reason for distributing source code. source code
without a signing key is not the "preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it", as modifications cannot be made.

3\. the signing key is an integral part of the "scripts used to control
compilation and installation".

4\. the signature is _part_ of the "executable"; without it, the resulting
object code is not executable.

~~~
Zak
IANAL, but I think every argument here would fail in court:

1\. Probably not. While it's created from the original work, it does not
contain the original work in any meaningful way. If it is, in any sense a
derivative work, it probably qualifies as fair use.

2\. Modifications to the Linux source code can be made without the key; they
just can't be run on the device in question. Nothing in GPL2 says modified
code has to run on the device the original code shipped with.

3\. A Linux kernel compiled from the same sources can be installed on another
device without the key.

4\. The fact that a specific machine refuses to execute it without the key
does not make the key part of the executable; other machines will execute it
without the key.

~~~
mindslight
1\. Fair use of the signature doesn't apply. The license to distribute the
compiled kernel is contingent upon anything derived from it being GPL as well
(section 2b/3). Might be able to hack around this with a different entity
doing the signing, but hopefully a court would see through that sham.

2\. But modifications to the executable program itself (in flash) have to be
facilitated. The preferred (HTC engineering) way of making these modifications
is through the bootloader. There might be a loophole here in that the
bootloader could be changed to allow flashing any kernel (but still not
execute without a key), but being sold the device while it was on (with
derivative works all over the place in RAM) would negate said loophole.

3\. The specific script that has to be included is the one which generated and
installed the resulting executable which was distributed to me on my specific
device.

4\. Good point, although the executable and signature are always distributed
together and meant specifically for one particular machine, so it might not be
as clearcut as you think

FWIW I've heard that Stallman has made similar arguments.

(I'm not a member of the lawyer guild either, so I'm not compelled to prefix
my opinions with disclaimers)

------
jonknee
They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the
Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook.
Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best
interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.

~~~
robg
When do these actions become anti-competitive?

~~~
glhaynes
What would make them so?

~~~
robg
This doesn't seem to be the handset maker or even the carrier controlling the
options. It's another software provider limiting potentially competing
software...on an open platform. Seems they're using their competitive power in
one domain to inhibit competition in another. What am I missing?

~~~
arebop
Anti-competitive doesn't just mean "not good for competitors." It's about
things that are harmful for the marketplace. For example, it excludes the
ordinary enjoyment of copyright exclusivity. You might think monopolies are
harmful for marketplaces, but as a society we've decided that copyrights do
more good than harm, so copyright exclusivity is not in itself anti-
competitive. A more relevant example: trademarks are not generally anti-
competitive.

Imagine Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time
Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with
Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to replace Bacardi
rum with his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty
Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist
that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum (and nobody else's) as a condition
for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name on rum-containing drinks? Would that be
"anti-competitive?"

------
martythemaniak
Well, on hand you have people complaining that Android is too open and allows
carriers to load crapware and disable tethering. On the other hand, we have
people complaining that Android is too closed because Motorola couldn't switch
location providers. Which one is it?

~~~
jerf
Can you establish that these are the exact same people? It's only hypocrisy if
you can establish that. Otherwise you've merely observed in a relatively
hostile way that various people have various ideas about "freedom" and that's
neither news nor terribly interesting on its own.

~~~
jonknee
John Gruber is playing both sides. It's veiled in his usual snark, but he has
been hitting on Skyhook quite a bit:

<http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android>

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/dont-be-evil>

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/16/skyhook-google>

And has also snarked about the "open for carriers" situation quite a bit:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/02/skype-android>

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/att-android>

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/17/preinstalled>

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/06/skype-verizon>

~~~
patrickaljord
His blog has turned from an Apple love fest into a Google/android hate blog.
Pretty ridiculous.

------
cma
Android has always been sold as an open system + proprietary google apps. If
you want access to the proprietary system (and presumably the Android
trademark), you fall in line. Any company is free to make a phone without the
proprietary google apps, but not selectively.

Yet for all this, Google still allows vendors to do things like lock the
phone's search to Bing.

------
jscore
Obviously it's one side of the story from Skyhook, as they're trying to spread
their point of view. Would love to hear Google's viewpoint.

~~~
jonknee
I'd guess it's something like, "Our testing has shown Skyhook performs worse
than our internal service in real world use and we want Android customers to
have the best."

------
grkhetan
I used to love Google, and will still love Google. But this action of theirs
disappointed me. Google thinks that they are an "open" and esp android is very
"open", i.e. it is free and open source. Manufacturers can modify the code and
adapt to their hardware. Thats all well and good. But when Motorola modifies
the code to add skyhook wireless for location, Google says take it off, or
else.... This is really not good and does not match up with Google's ideals.

And note that skyhook wireless is a known firm for such a thing, in fact they
had the first databases for wifi location search and iphones also used to use
them

------
dstein
Google Android is just begging to get forked, and splintered. Manufacturers
like Motorola and Samsung might have to bend to Google's will, but I doubt
carriers will sit tightly while Google's fangs sink deeper into their
industry.

~~~
stanleydrew
I'm not really sure what you mean by "their industry," but the fact that
carriers feel that their industry is anything other than delivering data is an
annoyance that we all have to suffer (at least in the US). So let's hope
Google can prevent full-blown carrier-specific forks of Android and keep
trying to reduce them to the commodity providers they should be.

