I find copyleft stipulations a bit overdone, personally. Software licensed under the Apache license can match Stallman's traditional definition of Free Software if the maintainer chooses to do so, and that's why it's considered a Free Software license. Even the GPL won't bring someone who doesn't care about free software into compliance; just take a glance at ffmpeg's Hall of Shame [1].

[1] http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html

I was only replying at your statement that Android is not free software: it is, by the letter of the law, even if it doesn't feel like it at all, in spirit.

I don't know if my reply came off as hostile, but I am thankful for your correction. I'm quite surprised that the FSF is so forgiving about what they consider a Free Software License. These sorts of Android "shenanigans" seems like exactly the sort of thing they don't like.

I don't see how GPL would make much difference to Android here.

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>

> Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright.

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.

That's a very good point, even besides the contributions there are some Apache licensed components in AOSP that Google have brought in themselves rather than had donated.

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.

But if they were GPL only, it's much more likely they'd ask for assigned copyright, in order to achieve the same thing.

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.

I am surprised that people talk about open source / free software, without knowing what it means.

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 FSF does not consider the closed software modifications shipped by vendors to be free software. Android is essentially a free-software project with many closed-source forks. The typical Android end user is not running free software (except for the copyleft portions where the vendors have no choice).

    The typical Android end user is not running 
    free software

This is a social problem -- what Open Source licenses do is to allow you to make forks in case you're unhappy with the way the project is being managed.

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.

While I agree in principle, you're perhaps glossing over the wave of handset TiVoization that is being championed by Motorola and now is spreading to HTC and others under the whitewash of "protecting the end-users". This prevents anyone except the manufacturer from updating or modifying even the most significant copyleft portions of Android (the kernel). Availability of free software is useless in that case. This is one of the "exploitable" weaknesses of GPLv2 that TiVo has pioneered and why GPLv3 was created. So, while yes, the Linux kernel on Motorola's recent phones is GPL free software, it's a moot point because you can't use anything except Motorola's blessed bits.

I'm going to quote Linus Torvalds on this:

""" 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?

Linus Torvalds does not represent the FSF and was not involved in the drafting of GPLv2 (he was a complete nobody when GPLv2 was released). Torvalds is also not the only copyright holder to the Linux source. His opinion about what the FSF is trying to achieve through its licensing is immaterial. Combating the wave of machines you "own" but that you can't control, improve or specialize for your own purposes is exactly how the FSF came into existence. In the past manufacturers discouraged tinkerers simply by not releasing their code. The GPL countered this by requiring source code release. Then TiVo innovated use of trusted computing to prevent end user modifications even if you have access to the source. As a response GPLv3 now requires that you are able to actually use modifications. I don't know why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous. If they were happy with TiVo's abuse of their license, they would not have developed GPLv3. To claim that the FSF endorses the bullshit Motorola or TiVo imposes on its customers is ridiculous. TiVo earned the badge.

The FSF does not represent Linus Tolvards and was not involved in developing the Linux kernel. The FSF is not the only or even the biggest contributor to the open-source pool of software. Their opinion about what the Linux kernel should disallow through its licensing is immaterial.

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

I do not think they are ambiguous. GPL.v3 is perfectly within their goals and they have been consistent. Their message is also clear and I admire RMS for what he has done.

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.

I think you're confusing the GPL with free software. The GPL doesn't define what is considered free software, it's merely expression of the enumerated freedoms. What TiVo and Motorola do is incompatible with the freedoms (specifically, freedom 1). The fact that GPLv2 allowed the software to be used inappropriately was a licensing defect. Most manufacturers aren't customer-hating assholes. TiVo and Motorola are. I am a customer of both and I will continue to warn others about their bullshit. It's entirely within their own power to change this. The part about Torvald's opinion about TiVoization that you are neglecting is that he believes the market will punish this behavior. He does not glowingly endorse this behavior. He merely tolerates it.

No, I was talking about TiVo, as a follow-up to your comment ... and your assertion that GPLv2 is flawed because it allowed for such usage.

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

He has no reason to "endorse" it either. Tolerance is what we should all be striving for. IMHO, the free market rules work just fine, except when the market is not really free, by means of natural or government backed monopolies (like patents). Worked great for other industries.

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.

Even if the license would have been GPL, they wouldn't have been required to release the source-code immediately. The time it takes to release the source-code only has to be reasonable, not instant.