Building custom ROM images for popular phones is a relatively common thing on the internet. There are a number of forums dedicated to hacking and creating custom Windows Mobile ROMs, and there's also a community of people working on custom Android ROMs. The latter community has been up in arms over the fact that Google has sent a cease and desist letter to one of the most popular ROM hackers.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2007-03-26
For further details, email shoot@foot.google.com
Agreed, but like them or not, Google is currently Linux's best shot to get mobile penetration.
Plus there's nothing stopping an Android spin off project as Android itself is open source - it's just a few Google specific tools that are proprietary.
Member since:2008-10-04
What's the big deal here? Sounds like Google doesn't want a repeat of what happened to Redhat when certain leeches/roaches started selling Redhat iso's on Ebay claiming that they could get support from Redhat if you bought them.
It's one of of the reason's Redhat clamped down on the use of it's trademarks and I don't blame them for it.
Member since:2007-09-06
In the Red Hat case, they give away the software and sell support services. Selling the software with a claim that it includes a support service from Red Hat is clearly fraudulent.
Here, I don't see a claim that Google is responsible for one flashing there phone with a different firmware. Google is not selling business support contracts either so it doesn't really infringe on Google's business when the consumer buys a phone and replaces the firmware themself. Heck, if the user is capable of installing an alternative ROM it's unlikely that they expect Google to run over and support it.
Member since:2005-07-06
To me, the point is this was probably a bad place to draw a line in the sand. What percentage of Android users are going to be running a custom ROM - 1-5%? Those people are the developer elite, the tweakers, hackers, etc. They will find a way to put your apps on after the fact quickly. So all you will have accomplished is ticking off what are probably your strongest supporters. It really does remind me of something Apple would do - they seem to love ticking off their most dedicated users.
Member since:2007-02-17
Except that Apple has yet to sue any individual hackintosher or jailbreaker. They've only sued those who have chosen to make a profit from their work. Like the article points out most companies could care less about these hacks, they only care whe it starts affecting them monetarily. Google on the other hand has actively persued someone who was freely distributing his hack to a select few.
Member since:2006-06-28
For further details, email shoot@foot.google.com
Maybe you are right, but I don't know about a Free Software company. Each company wants to make money and will do such things, if it allows them to make more profits. Could you please give an example for a Free Software company?
Or do you mean Foundations, like Mozilla. Without thinking much about it this seems to come closes to a Free Software company.
Member since:2005-07-06
[q Could you please give an example for a Free Software company? Or do you mean Foundations, like Mozilla. Without thinking much about it this seems to come closes to a Free Software company. [/q]
I would say Redhat fits this bill pretty well. RHEL is Free (as-in-freedom) software. That's why Oracle and others have been able to base products off of it, although none as successful as the original.
Member since:
2008-07-15
For all those claiming Apple is the heart of all evil and Google the epitome of good:
Hahahahahahaha. What do you say now? Google is no better, no worse than basically every other company out there. I just hope this puts a stop to this "Google is for freedom" nonsense I see get spouted all over the web these days.
Member since:2006-01-26
Hahahahahahaha. What do you say now? Google is no better, no worse than basically every other company out there. I just hope this puts a stop to this "Google is for freedom" nonsense I see get spouted all over the web these days.
I certainly don't see Google telling people they must limit what software they install on their Android phones - they're just telling this guy he can't redistribute their non-free software independently.
I'm sure Google would have absolutely zero issues with an individual packaging replacement software with identical functionality.
But hey, thanks for pointing out how ludicrous Apple-lovers are when it comes to arguing nonsense.
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:2006-01-26
Free-as-in-beer is never an open license to redistribute - and it never has been.
Some software that is "free" in this fashion does come with terms allowing a user to redistribute it as long as certain conditions are met (such as all files remain unmodified, etc.), but I gather that was not granted in Google's case - thus it's copyright infringement to assume you can redistribute their software however you see fit without asking permission first.
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:2005-07-06
Free-as-in-beer is never an open license to redistribute - and it never has been. "
So hang on, when Apple puts restrictions on what one can do with the software - namely the redistribution with non-Apple hardware and using modified/hackedup files - its considered evil. When someone creates a custom ROM image for Android, sent a cease and desist letter because of redistributing parts which cannot be redistributed - its apparently all good? talk about a double standard if I ever saw one!
Member since:2006-01-26
Yeah except one is standard copyright law and the other is just Apple being a bitch.
(I have not seen any proof yet that Psystar actually violated a copyright)
Edited 2009-09-30 02:39 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
(I have not seen any proof yet that Psystar actually violated a copyright)
Pystar resold modified copies of Mac OS X pre-installed on their machines - but then again you deliberately IGNORE what I have written in past posts regarding this issue. I'm not surprised you do ignore then or otherwise you'd realise what you have said has no merit at all.
Member since:2006-01-26
I deliberately ignore your past posts because they're tiresome... and I tend to ignore most of the "Apple apologist" posts anyway, it's usually hard to pick them apart when they confuse EULA with copyright.
IMO, there's quite a difference from reselling something you have purchased.
For all I know, Psystar has simply replaced bits of OS X with their own versions of components, which is essentially no different than I re-selling a Windows computer that I have installed software on that replaces the built-in bits from Microsoft. In that case, I am not making a copy of a Windows HD image and giving it to all my friends, but I am reselling a purchased/modified version where the modifications are my own. I no longer have the original in my possession.
But this *does* bring up an interesting question - can I install a computer with lots of free (as in beer) software and resell it? Hmm... I never thought about that...
Member since:2008-12-09
well the thing is, you can redistribute and use the apple software THAT IS OPENSOURCE aka Darwin.
It works.
The non open source stuff, cannot be copied/etc.
Just like Google actually. They just happen to have a lot more stuff on MacOSX that is closed source (because they coded most of the GUI stuff and many services).
And yes, Google is as "evil" as is any company.
Saying "we wont do evil" doesnt quite cut it.
It has the same value if I eat the last cookie in the jar and say its not me.
Member since:2009-05-22
>> I'm sure Google would have absolutely zero issues with an individual packaging replacement software with identical functionality.
Yes, and no... at the same time.
I'm a G1 owner and I use the Cyagonen image. To be able to use it, I had to hack the phone... downgrade it, exploit a bug and install the new image. That SUCKS. I could do the same with the dev edition without hacking it, but I can't buy it from my country.
But... why the hell I need a different image? Well... because google's image is intensionally crippled... no Thetering? No file transferring bluetooth? No fricking download of non-android files (try to download a .zip file just so you can copy it to a internet-less computer later)...
Google should never ever accept this from HTC/T-Mobile/Whatever....... That was the main advantage of open-source: things are made to help the user, not to be in his way. I hope Palm and Nokia don't do the same...
Too bad the OpenMoko project was not a success.
Edited 2009-09-30 11:42 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
What's your real point ? I don't get it, your comparing a company that as a record of suing, for damages, everyone they don't like and a cease and desist order ...
It's like saying someone who got a ticket for speeding 5 km over the limit is similar to a drunk driver who killed a familly of 5.
Edited 2009-09-29 20:53 UTC
Member since:
2009-02-11
Member since:
2005-07-06
Free and open source software would be nowhere without copyright law. The copyrigth law is what makes it possible for us, to ensure that our applications remains free and open. As free software developers we should respect that law even when it is not to our emediate advantage if we want to be taken seriously.
In this case, I have a hard time to see that google actually get hurt from this, but if they claim they do, this should be respected.
Frankly, these google applications are not all that good, and leave a lot of room for improvement. Given how much Cyanogen have improved the free parts of Android they could probably have made free alternatives that have blown the closed source google versions away. According to the article this is one of the alternatives the developers consider. When that happens, Google will look rather stupid.
Edited 2009-09-29 21:33 UTC
Member since:2008-02-05
Member since:2005-07-06
Of course at least google maps can be installed 'aftermarket' or so I believe.
IMHO, the google applications are not that good. For one thing I don't like to trust google with my personal information such as my contacts, my calendar events, or my e-mail, or to do lists. I want something with similar userinterface that stores data on my own servers. Google maps don't even give voice directions, wich makes it useless while driving.
So there would be a lot of things to improve if I evver find the time to write replacements.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Something nobody seems to be considering is the fact that phones have a lot of licensed propriety software in them. Google may simply not be allowed to give this software away.
There's also regulatory controls on phones with them being radio devices, it might not be legal to give some of that stuff away.
Member since:2009-06-23
> Something nobody seems to be considering
> is the fact that phones [are the ultimate
> argument, the Technological *Singularity]
* They transcend any (software) freedom ethic etc.
Actually I was considering it.
And I can't believe Google can do something wrong, either.
Edited 2009-09-30 13:18 UTC
Member since:
2009-02-05
If Google's problem is in their bundled apps, nothing stops the guy to release a new ROM without those apps. Advanced users will install them very easy if they need them. Unfortunately if Google doesn't like the process of making a custom ROM itself, this might be a problem. I use a custom ROM on my Windows Mobile handset and I love it. If one day I have an Android based device, I would definitely use a custom one - they are IMHO always better.
Big vendors never care too much about the details, performance or anything in particular - they produce "good enough for everyone" image, which doesn't fit the most advanced users. As somebody pointed out - those 2% are nothing.
...and Thom, I really like your style - I just imagined how my device "blows up in puffs of fairy dust" 
Edit: I just saw the original article as well as the blog post. Google doesn't want their apps inside. Modding is permitted. So - build a ROM without their "Google Experience" apps. Problem solved
Edited 2009-09-29 22:36 UTC
Member since:
2007-05-12
I find Google to be a bit of an enigma.
On the plus side, they do really good stuff with their "Summer of Code" program. They've also done some very good work with their Chrome/Chromium browser, and there are one or two other open apps they've done (that I can't remember just now) which have also been good.
On the minus side, there is stuff like this "cease and desist".
It's as if they can't quite make up their mind on the whole openness thing. If they were a cruise ship, they'd have their passengers spewing a bit with their sudden lurches like this.
- obsidian
Member since:2006-02-06
On the plus side, they do really good stuff with their "Summer of Code" program. They've also done some very good work with their Chrome/Chromium browser, and there are one or two other open apps they've done (that I can't remember just now) which have also been good.
On the minus side, there is stuff like this "cease and desist".
It's as if they can't quite make up their mind on the whole openness thing. If they were a cruise ship, they'd have their passengers spewing a bit with their sudden lurches like this.
- obsidian
I guess it's quite simple, actually. I wouldn't be having a problem with "sudden lurches" because I see none.
Basically what I see is: Hey, we're Google. We are a company in the business of, guess what, making money. Your software and playing ball with your community allow us to build up a good image, so we play by your rules, based on copyright law, and work together.
Now, we released this code, some of it is based on the same rules as yours, some is based on our rules, both grounded on copyright law. Please be good citizens and abide by all the rules. Thank you.
Remember "Do no Evil" (whatever that may mean by Google, I don't quite believe companies can actually not do any evil, they just hide their evil well) does not automatically mean "Do Good by everyone else's multiple standards".
Member since:2009-09-30
Now, we released this code, some of it is based on the same rules as yours, some is based on our rules, both grounded on copyright law. Please be good citizens and abide by all the rules. Thank you.
I agree wholeheartedly with this summation of what Google is trying to do with this C&D letter. Comparing this to Apple's habit of suing for damages every person that irritates them, well, its not nearly the same.
*nod* "Never Do Evil" =/= "Always Do Good".
<geekComment>
There is that whole Neutral alignment still available *chuckle*
</geekComment>
Member since:2006-01-06
There's nothing enigmatic about Google. They're a company. They act solely in their own self-interest. People tend to get confused when they see that, sometimes, Google's interests align with the populist masses and, other times, they're relentless corporate whores (like this). Consider this: Google is using a custom-distribution of Linux to power their datacenters. Now, of course, Google isn't obligated by the GPL to contribute their changes to Linux back to the world, but shouldn't they? They won't, in any case, because it's not in their interest to help their competitors. Which brings me back to my original point. As long as you can clearly see Google as a greedy corporation, there's no confusion.
Member since:
2005-07-01
Thom's writeup is pretty good. Herein, more information to add confusion to this mess.
It seems likely that what caused Google to attack with lawyers was CyanogenMod experimental builds including the unreleased new Market application (which app is nice, btw). C has been pulling features from experimental SVN branches for months, but the binary Market app (closed source!) was leaked/released by mistake/your story here.
ROM cooking and distribution has always been legally grey but Microsoft, HTC, Motorola and other major companies have rarely C&D a non-commercial distributor. The forum where most of the activity took place has lots of people redistributing ROMs with copyrighted pieces in them. Hardly ever has a manufacturer complained.
The opensource parts of android (the AOSP code) don't make up a functioning phone ROM. Google engineers are working on some of the most egregious aspects of this.
There are devices in various countries on the market that run Android but are not Google Experience licensed. This is probably Google's major concern about these apps along with them honouring agreements they have with other companies (HTC, map data providers, etc).
Market is not available except with Google Experience licensed devices, so the other apps "free beer" status as free downloads is not as important. Other software distribution methods work fine without the Market, but no one really want to have three, much less six or more such apps/markets.
That last bit is what confuses me the most. I can't imagine Google actually wants to force a fork in the fledling Market space.
Member since:
2005-08-12
You cannot make money from open-source software/hardware.
Google/Apple will be non-existant if they stop making money. They have no other choice but to be evil closed source organization. This is their question of survival in this brutal/bad/evil capitalistic world.
I will always appreciate Microsoft for "surviving" so long in this brutal/bad/evil capitalistic world.
