They made a similar declaration against the iPhone. But really, every vendor works roughly like this.

I can consolidate every FSF pronouncement:

Don't use cell phones, they're all bad. Do not browse the web. Instead, have a cron job download a text version and mail it to you over uucp, every day.

I might as well build a cabin in the woods. Or you know, compromise based on my own comfort level.

Edit: I do value the FSF. I would just like to see more practical suggestions for the layperson from them. Not everyone can lead the techno-monastic lifestyle.

The FSF provides what is expected of it: Dogmatic consistency and a warning that without a certain set of freedoms you are a sharecropper.

The reason you don't see a more practical suggestion from them is the suggestion involves "none of the currently above options".

True this. Two points of "extremism" (say in this case, the FSF and Microsoft) has it's place in establishing a solid middle ground.

When did the FSF say not to browse the web? Yes there is the "non-free" JS stuff, which IMO does have a point. It can be split into the issue of obfuscated and license-free JS.

He's referring to how RMS has said that he browses the Web. I think it was more of a painting of the lifestyle as a whole, rather than a specific edict from the FSF.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134979

Yea, doesn't mean that he would recommend it to others.

They are not asking to avoid Android altogether, just the market.

Most Android devices are locked down so that users cannot install apps outside the Android Market (aka "sideloading").

Of course those of us who know about xda-developers.com and are handy with adb can easily bypass this in most cases. But we're in the minority. The average joe, the vast majority of the user base is either incapable or unwilling to do these things.

Unless you've got a rooted & bootloader-unlocked device running an AOSP-derived ROM, Google's dream of an open mobile device OS only applies to the carriers.

"Most Android devices are locked down so that users cannot install apps outside the Android Market (aka "sideloading")."

This is new to me. Got any proof?

As far as I know in the US it's just AT&T.

My phone is stock, not rooted, it has a checkbox to install non-market apps and that works fine. Not sure what they're on about.

You almost seem like you are setting up Ted Kaczynsky = Richard Stallman. We have anti-tech, lives in cabin, and extremely dogmatic.

Perhaps next we will have GPL with logic bombs sent via email...

Yeah, it was a joke. Still,seriously any strongly dogmatic organization will exhibit obvious inconsistencies of common sense, while holding to the logic they ascribe to.

It's Ted Kaczynski, and you're seriously reading what you want to read there. That's not what I got from it at all.

Jokes are also amusing.

I'm under the impression that Google can remote kill any .apk that's been installed, not just those that came from the market. Is that inaccurate? I suppose even if they can't do it directly, they could force push an app that would remove a non-market app similar to how they pushed a cleaner for the market malware.

P.S. - Please let me turn off web market/off device installs. Thanks.

I will take the remote kill power that google has anytime over the restrictions by the apple store.

Apple has it too, actually, so Google is better all around for "freedom/openness".

The slug of this article is telling:

    android-market-has-drm-too

Assuming that's an early working title, I wonder why it didn't last? The implied comparison is interesting.

Meh

Its convoluted the right Google exercises, BTW there are non Google Android Markets, to protect users from Malware, etc also enforces copyright licenses..ie such as GPL.

its like FSF Hurd ..have you heard when its being released yet? I hear next century is on the roadmap..[its sarcasm folks, I am a FSF member]