Android openness, was Re: Android codebase - Patch set #1

[Sean McNeil]

Jason wrote:
> Sean McNeil wrote:
> [...]
>   
>> flamma at correo.ugr.es wrote:
>>     
>>> Excuse me if I'm going a little out of topic, but, will some polemic
>>> features like [1] and [2] be removed, so the platform is a bit "more
>>> free"?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://alsutton.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/android-the-not-so-open-open-platform/
>>>   
>>>       
>> This is related to phones from companies that need or want to control
>> access to their hardware. Google has nothing to do with this except to
>> provide for security through certificates. This is a good idea and I
>> think OM will have one, but it doesn't mean there will be anything
>> closed source on the OM phones. It will remain open.
>>
>>     
>
> We have different definitions of open, then.  ;-)  By yours, Tivo is
> open because it uses linux.  By my definition, open means you can change
> the device to your liking.  My main concern is this article:
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=211300198&cid=RSSfeed_eetimes_newsRSS
>
> Which led me to discover this:
>
> http://www.mocana.com/NanoPhone-Android.html
>
> In particular:
>
> "NanoBoot™: Provides all the tools and firmware source code needed to
> perform pre-boot verification. NanoBoot uses strong cryptography to
> validate the BIOS, firmware, and boot loader images and can run in
> memory-constrained environments (depending on cryptographic
> configuration), requiring less than 8 KB uncompressed firmware space and
> less than 2 KB of RAM."
>
> Please understand, I'm not opposed to Android at all.  The more open
> (viewable) code, the better.  I'm just getting frustrated with getting
> my hopes up, then seeing the crap I referred to above.
>
> Note: the EETimes article was put out only one day before the G1 hit the
> streets...
>
>   
>>> [2]
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/16/google-implemented-an-android-kill-switch-those-rascals/
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed here. Since Android is open
>> source, if there is a kill switch it can be removed. I think they are
>> talking about removing things from their version of the application market.
>>
>>     
>
> I don't mind a kill switch for apps downloaded through Google.  There
> needs to be a "safe download zone" for users who have no desire to hack
> their phone.  But if I compile it and load it myself, they should leave
> it alone.
>
> If the kill switch is NanoBoot, you're going to have a hard time
> deleting that.
>   

Don't forget, this is OM. You are free to use whatever you like on them. 
You don't have to use NanoBoot to run Android.