wjbaird at alumni.uwaterloo.ca
Tue May 19 23:43:11 CEST 2009
Can you point out exactly which criticism of Android on the wikipedia page
you think makes Android not a 'free' option on the OM, and what part of the
ars technica article you are talking about? I've read through both and it
isn't obvious to me.
I certainly agree that Android running on a locked phone with all the
restrictions associated with it is not 'free'.
But I must say that I don't see why the Koolu implementation of Android
running on the FR wouldn't qualify as free. You've got the source under an
open source license, you can run what ever free software you like on it.
That smells like 'free' to me.
I don't see how the fact that people can create 'non-free' android distros
on other phones impacts whether the verson on the FR is free...
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Juergen Schinker <
ba1020 at homie.homelinux.net> wrote:
> > rms wrote:
> >>> Android is under the APL2, which has even less restriction than the
> >> Only on a superficial level can that be true. It has less restrictions
> >> than the
> >> GPL because the later tries to make sure everyone has all the essencial
> >> freedoms.
> >> APL2 (and similar licenses) mean that somewhere along the line YOU may
> >> have
> >> a Free Software phone on your hands, just another proprietary piece of
> >> crap.
> Please read the Criticism on wikipedia about android
> and than this
> and look at android not just as an working distro
> look at the concept of android and from what google lives
> and than really make up your mind and you will admit
> that android is not an option.
> Openmoko community mailing list
> community at lists.openmoko.org
Warren Baird - Photographer and Digital Artist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the community