The FSF considers the Apache license to be free software (and GPLv3 compatible) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright. Which means they can still make early releases to vendors (like Motorola for the Xoom) under a different license, and then make the public AOSP release under an OSS license later.
This is no different from Trolltech's former model with Qt, or the dozens of other free software libraries where the developer makes some extra money from non-GPL Licensing on the side.
The point is that Android 2.3 is Free Software, even if Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet. Google can't do anything to take back 2.3 now, it has freed it.
<Speculation> I'd be very surprised if Motorola got Android 3.0 for the Xoom under any OSS license. I imagine it would have been given to them under a special proprietary NDA-equipped license, or maybe even only licensed as a binary. </Speculation>
Does Google own the copyright to contributed code? I assume the Android project contains patches from outside developers and they don't require copyright to be assigned to Google.
I guess in my hypothetical scenario, they could relicense them as GPL but then they'd have redistribution requirements via GPL virality - at least for those bits.
Or they'd need to restructure their parts of the project around them to avoid the viral aspect, like they have for the Linux kernel.
I guess my point is more that not every part of every Free Software project is always released to the public under that license. "Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet, but will be" is not that different to other common OSS project scenarios.
To be completely 110% "open" you'd GPL (or even AGPL) and not ask for assignment, which would level the playing field for everyone. But it's not common for business sponsored projects, or required to be Free Software. And again, even RMS accepts that there are strategic reasons to use non-copyleft licences for e.g. audio and video codecs as widespread adoption of proprietary alternatives would harm Free Software.
At the very least you should have your own coherent version of what "open" or "free" means for you, and that Android breaks, instead of putting "shenanigans" in quotes.
The typical Android end user is not running
free software
If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless.
Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.
""" If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """
Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case?
What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand?
What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it?
If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
Also, Linus' opinion represents that of the majority of core kernel contributers. This can be checked, based on their mailing list, and based on the growing list of companies sponsoring its development.
why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous
My problem is with all the other people that suddenly discover the virtues of Free Software and consider it within their right to trash other people's work. Unfortunately being negative on the Internet is far too easy. Meritocracy doesn't work. The FSF has the right to bitch and moan about open-source versus free-software. Most other people do not.
All I'm saying -- it depends on who's perspective you're relying on, and since when talking about TiVo you're mostly talking about the Linux kernel, I gave it as a shining example of a project who's main founder disagrees.
The part about Torvald ... he merely tolerates it
That said I completely agree that Motorola are assholes.
But you cannot change their behavior, unless you're going to do it by means of healthy competition -- simply because if Android were to impose stricter rules on locking, Motorola wouldn't have joined the party, and I'm pretty sure they are still skeptical about their choice ;-)
Imagine if Android somehow becomes the standard, just as Windows, but for mobile phones. And that you can run your apps on every phone, and thus have no vendor lock-in (like people have with iOS for example) -- the truth of the matter is that software is much more bigger than hardware, and mobile phones themselves will be a complementary to software (just as PCs currently are).
In this instance do you think Motorola will afford to lose market share to smaller, more open manufacturers that will be dying to grab a chunk of the market by any means necessary?
Which it the reason they probably are trying to do lock-in now, when the market is unprepared for it -- you're witnessing a land-grab. Apple does it too -- the more they shove on their customer's necks, the more they'll have in the future when competition will be stronger.
The important part of this story is that other manufacturers will be able to join the game, and unless something is yet to unfold, this is precisely what Google wants, as it is in their best interest. Not only that but they are putting pressure on it by releasing unjailed devices like Nexus S.
Have some faith in humanity dude :-) Software is a relatively new field versus all the others.
I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to go about it...were I a Google exec and responsible to shareholders, I would have difficulty justifying a truly open process. But at this point, "open" has become a bullet point on a product box to attract a certain demographic.
The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you.
> I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.
The GPL requires that sort of thing
If you accompany your binary release with a "written offer", you can actually postpone the source release. The GPL doesn't give a deadline either.
People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not.
You can always fork Android, and Google cannot sue you for patent infringement (courtesy of the Apache license). The problem then is that the fish doesn't come free anymore -- which is the main gripe of people (i.e. the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open).
As for the "users cannot do whatever they want with their devices" -- they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). If openness is really what people need, open devices will win because it is a free market (the Nexus S is doing well in my country btw).
I agree. In fact, that was my original argument.
> the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open.
I don't actually care if the development is not done in the open. What I actually care about is being ability to modify and install alternative versions of the software on my devices. I have had to throw away a lot of perfectly good hardware because the software was old and outdated with no way to update it. I've also had to deal with bugs with no way to fix them. Of course, none of this is Google's problem because they don't make the hardware.
> they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?).
The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? I think you've got something wrong there. As a programmer, I don't build hardware. I build software.
> If openness is really what people need, open devices will win
No, because most people are not programmers (or highly technical) and therefore have no need or ability to run alternative software. So no, openness will not win out. This appeal to the masses is not a good argument.
The purpose of Free Software to build hardware?
A valid point nonetheless. Search for any of RMS's talks and he'll bring this point up.
No, because most people are not programmers
Which is effectively impossible if the device running the software is locked down! Android, as Free Software, could be made effectively meaningless if I'm not able to tinker with that very software installed on my device. The FSF agrees, hence the GPL3. Telling me to make my own hardware, exactly what you said, doesn't help me at all.
What definition of FS are you using? Could you clarify which of the four freedoms [0] Android infringes on?
On the other hand, terms like "open source" and "free software" have absolutely nothing to do with the development process / collaboration model; they only have to do with end-user or redistribution licenses.
Also, the Apache license is stronger than GPL.v2 in the "free software" sense -- it's a lot easier to restrict GPL.v2 software redistribution by means of patents.
One needs to be careful not to mix terms.
One needs to be careful not to mix terms. Android is "open source" but that's as far as they go. It's not Free Software and the development process is not collaborative.