Comment by BrenBarn
20 days ago
But Android is open source. In a way the situation here shows the limits of what is possible just by imposing license requirements that require distribution of source code. The problem is the concentration of power in the provision of services. Even licenses like the AGPL don't really solve the problem here, which is that there is a coalition of businesses including, say, Google and banks, that via their provision of essential services hold worrisome sway over the practical ability of many individuals to live their lives.
Stallman's statements about how the person controlling nonfree software "is your master" are important, but they don't go far enough. The problem is not just the controlling of abstract intellectual property like intellectual property rights to particular software. The problem includes the actual control of how services are provided. When the provision of important services --- be they auth, email, banking, groceries, whatever --- is concentrated in a few hands, those hands become masters of many, regardless of the software licenses involved.
Android is not open source. There is an android open source project, but it's not what you colloquially think of as Android. Its not the android you're running on your phone - in fact, I don't believe it can run on any phone currently produced on Earth. Its really more of a showcase, not a software.
Yes, in a way FSF has succeeded beyond their wildest imagination and they are facing a new world with new challenges.
> The problem includes the actual control of how services are provided.
FSF has opinions about SaaS which they call SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute).
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
Android is open source but not "free software" which is exactly on point. People have been fooled to think that open=respecting your freedoms, but there is no equivalency.
Basically my point is that it's not really about software. It's about access to things that are of practical use. Having a monopoly (or oligopoly) on hamburgers or hammers would be a similar problem. It's true that within the software realm, open source (or "free software" or whatever other term you want to use) increases access, but it doesn't in itself solve the problem.
The people writing the software need to eat and if they can't do that it doesn't matter what the license is, the software won't get written and no one will be able to use it. Moves like this thing by Google are about economics rather than licenses or abstract ideas like "freedom". A world with ten gazillion closed-source programs competing would likely be more free than one with tons of open source software but only one company that can pay a living wage so that people can work on that software.
> Even licenses like the AGPL don't really solve the problem here, which is that there is a coalition of businesses including, say, Google and banks, that via their provision of essential services hold worrisome sway over the practical ability of many individuals to live their lives
If Android was AGPL without source assignment, this wouldn't be an issue.
Thanks to the anti-tivoization clause manufacturers are required to provide you with the ability to run your own code on the device, without any restrictions, so you'd have a guaranteed right to root the device and sideload your own apps, without something like SafetyNet being able to figure it out.