I just received my Fairphone. It came with a widget to "install Google apps" - when I clicked it, I was told that the phone is missing important functionality as it does not include Google apps, which they "unfortunately" don't have a license to distribute.
I then deleted the widget.
In th instruction folder under "your rights", we're told that all applicable software licenses are in the "Legal information" section under the "about phone" entry in the settings.
Entering there, I find that the only point is "Open Source Licenses". These are listed in a not very intuitive way, but seems mostly to be GPL and standard Android/Apache licenses. So apparently the Fairphone does not have any proprietary software installed by default. So maybe buying a Fairphone is one of the easiest (admittedly not cheapest) ways of getting a free vanilla Android system?
Best, Carsten
On 31.07.2014 12:05, Carsten Agger wrote:
I just received my Fairphone. It came with a widget to "install Google apps" - when I clicked it, I was told that the phone is missing important functionality as it does not include Google apps, which they "unfortunately" don't have a license to distribute.
I then deleted the widget.
In th instruction folder under "your rights", we're told that all applicable software licenses are in the "Legal information" section under the "about phone" entry in the settings.
Entering there, I find that the only point is "Open Source Licenses". These are listed in a not very intuitive way, but seems mostly to be GPL and standard Android/Apache licenses. So apparently the Fairphone does not have any proprietary software installed by default. So maybe buying a Fairphone is one of the easiest (admittedly not cheapest) ways of getting a free vanilla Android system?
Best, Carsten
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hello,
There are no non-free apps installed by default, but it does include non-free drivers and firmwares. It is also missing F-Droid which should be included on a free Android device.
Tobias Platen
On 07/31/2014 12:36 PM, Tobias Platen wrote:
There are no non-free apps installed by default, but it does include non-free drivers and firmwares.
This would make it as free as CyanogenMod or Ubuntu Phone, I suppose, but less free than Replicant.
It is also missing F-Droid which should be included on a free Android device.
Yes, I missed that until I installed it. They also shouldn't ask people to install Google Apps without warning against the serious consequences for freedom and (in this case very much so) privacy. I'll submit a message about that in their support forum.
On 07/31/2014 10:36 AM, Tobias Platen wrote:
There are no non-free apps installed by default, but it does include non-free drivers and firmwares. It is also missing F-Droid which should be included on a free Android device.
That is definitely not a prerequisite for an Android system to be considered free, but merely your personal preference.
Am 31.07.2014 13:40, schrieb Heiki “Repentinus” Ojasild:
On 07/31/2014 10:36 AM, Tobias Platen wrote:
There are no non-free apps installed by default, but it does include non-free drivers and firmwares. It is also missing F-Droid which should be included on a free Android device.
That is definitely not a prerequisite for an Android system to be considered free, but merely your personal preference.
No, but probably for a free Android system one wants to use.
Best wishes Michael
Tobias Platen tobias@platen-software.de, Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:36:26 +0200:
There are no non-free apps installed by default, but it does include non-free drivers and firmwares.
Yes, the project let their chip supplier rip them off. Probably despite better knowledge. The non-free drivers reduce the hackability of the device drastically. They prevent the user from updating the system kernel, leave questions about possible anti features in this kernel, and prevent the implementation of kernel based techniques that are not shipped with the default installation. They represent also a grave obstacle to security patches. Since the drivers are necessary for operating the device and are tailored to the specific kernel version, this even affects features which are unrelated to these drivers.
I think the project hasn't kept its promise on openness.
It is also missing F-Droid which should be included on a free Android device.
My toaster is also missing F-Droid... oh how those chains weigh on me. "Non-free" means to restrict the user, not to neglect promoting applications, which from the viewpoint of the hardware supplier might be arbitrary.
Don't get me wrong, I love F-Droid, but we are not even close to a point where we can outright *expect* device vendors to include it in their default distribution. There is a lot of more important things obstructing the way there.
I cannot recommend any current smart phone. Non-free drivers cripple the Firefox, Ubuntu and Jolla phone just as much. The problem is much graver than what we are used to from driver situations on the PC market. However the Notebook market is becoming affected by the same problems. Our old computers are getting replaced with a class of devices on which the hardware isn't interchangeable anymore, and which are limited to vendor supplied kernels to be operational at all.
On Thursday 31 July 2014 12:36:26 Tobias Platen wrote:
There are no non-free apps installed by default
I am sorry I have to disagree here. It is heavily filled with non-free software.
When I still had a Fairphone, I tried to make it as free as possible, but eventually gave up. Maybe this is still useful to you:
https://github.com/grote/fairphone-barebone/
Please note that if you really want to use both SIM card slots, this currently removes too much.
Kind Regards, Torsten
On 07/31/2014 05:47 PM, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2014 12:36:26 Tobias Platen wrote:
There are no non-free apps installed by default
I am sorry I have to disagree here. It is heavily filled with non-free software.
When I still had a Fairphone, I tried to make it as free as possible, but eventually gave up. Maybe this is still useful to you:
https://github.com/grote/fairphone-barebone/Please note that if you really want to use both SIM card slots, this currently removes too much.
Which apps are under a proprietary license? The "About" section in the settings doesn't list any proprietary licenses at all. Only "Open source" licenses, mainly Apache and GPL.
(I see the firmware as a separate, though also important, issue. But Cyanogenmod also includes proprietary firmware, so the Fairphone might be "as good" as that and a better option than phones which are hardcoded to demand you provide a Google account.)
On Thursday 31 July 2014 17:56:32 Carsten Agger wrote:
Which apps are under a proprietary license? The "About" section in the settings doesn't list any proprietary licenses at all. Only "Open source" licenses, mainly Apache and GPL.
Proprietary software usually does not require a license to be shipped with it to end-users and only sometimes you have an EULA.
When looking for proprietary software in our phone, looking for licenses will not get you very far. You have to look at the software itself.
Most of the apps that my script removes [1] are non-free. Still, in order to have a working device, some non-free apps and other modifications to the Android user land are required.
The sources for the Linux kernel are also incomplete [2] in possible violation of its GPLv2 license. This is one of the things that prevents us to build better and newer versions of Android for the Fairphone ourselves.
Kind Regards, Torsten
[1] https://github.com/grote/fairphone-barebone/blob/master/freephone.sh [2] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2636257
On 01.08.2014 12:12, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2014 17:56:32 Carsten Agger wrote:
Which apps are under a proprietary license? The "About" section in the settings doesn't list any proprietary licenses at all. Only "Open source" licenses, mainly Apache and GPL.
Proprietary software usually does not require a license to be shipped with it to end-users and only sometimes you have an EULA.
When looking for proprietary software in our phone, looking for licenses will not get you very far. You have to look at the software itself.
Most of the apps that my script removes [1] are non-free. Still, in order to have a working device, some non-free apps and other modifications to the Android user land are required.
The sources for the Linux kernel are also incomplete [2] in possible violation of its GPLv2 license. This is one of the things that prevents us to build better and newer versions of Android for the Fairphone ourselves.
Kind Regards, Torsten
[1] https://github.com/grote/fairphone-barebone/blob/master/freephone.sh
[2] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2636257
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
The fairphone launcher seems to be free software[1], but all third party programms are be nonfree, as long the corresponding source code is not released. I did not try to build those programs from source.
Thanks to Tobias and Torsten for clarifying.
I just went to write this on their forum:
"
I'm a free software activist and just received my second batch Fairphone.
Basically, I believe the "fair" solution as regards to software is that we should always have the right to run, study, modify and redistribute any software we use - which is rather a prerequisite for "owning" it, so having 100% free software is very much in the Fairphone's spirit.
At first I thought this was already the case, as the legal information in "About this phone" only includes "Open Source Licenses".
However, the phone seems to include proprietary firmware (maybe inevitable at this point) and some of the apps seem not to be free software. How do I find out exactly which apps are covered by the "open source licenses" and which are not? I'd like to delete all the latter and only keep the former. And then I very much hope that future versions of the Fairphone will build on 100% free software. The "End-User License for Fairphone OS" (https://fairphone.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201359553) is not just not free or "Open Source", it's actually quite unacceptable for anyone with an interest in free software.
The best case scenario would be that each app is open source, its source code is easily available, there is no proprietary firmware because all hardware has open specifcations, and the EULA on the URL above should state that you, the user, is always allowed to use, study, change and redistribute the software as you want.
This should be the out-of-the-box experience of an actually "Fair" device. If people want to install proprietary packages as e.g. the Google apps on top of this, they'll of course be free to do so.
And in order not to sound too negative, I'll add that the Fairphone is a step forward compared to other Android devices. It comes rooted, and you're not required to have a Google account to use it. That's really worth a lot! As I want the project to succeed, I'd also like it to give complete software freedom out of the box, as that's actually the only fair way to deal in software. Fairphone should not settle for anything less.
" https://forum.fairphone.com/t/which-out-of-the-box-apps-are-free-software/17...
In the EULA mentioned above, they write several times that the restrictions on what you can do with the software are "not interesting" for most users.
This indicates to me that the main problem here is the usual, that of education. They don't seem to understand the issue at all, especially not why freedom is important. Maybe they belong to the "Ubuntu generation", who've been presented and in some cases grown up with some really slick and well-working free software packages and thus come to an admiration of all things "open source" - but because the slick software didn't come with an explanation of the principles behind free software, they see no problem in accepting even slicker proprietary software. Like some "smart" Open Source developers insisting on only using non-copyleft licenses. (Hmmm, the last remarks are also about another frustration I'm having, currently: The thing that giving people free software is useful if you also don't get them to grasp why it's important that it's free. Adoption without education is useless, it would seem, and that's frustrating, in part because adoption is so much easier to achieve).
On 08/01/2014 03:30 PM, Tobias Platen wrote:
On 01.08.2014 12:12, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2014 17:56:32 Carsten Agger wrote:
Which apps are under a proprietary license? The "About" section in the settings doesn't list any proprietary licenses at all. Only "Open source" licenses, mainly Apache and GPL.
Proprietary software usually does not require a license to be shipped with it to end-users and only sometimes you have an EULA.
When looking for proprietary software in our phone, looking for licenses will not get you very far. You have to look at the software itself.
Most of the apps that my script removes [1] are non-free. Still, in order to have a working device, some non-free apps and other modifications to the Android user land are required.
The sources for the Linux kernel are also incomplete [2] in possible violation of its GPLv2 license. This is one of the things that prevents us to build better and newer versions of Android for the Fairphone ourselves.
Kind Regards, Torsten
[1] https://github.com/grote/fairphone-barebone/blob/master/freephone.sh
[2] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2636257
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
The fairphone launcher seems to be free software[1], but all third party programms are be nonfree, as long the corresponding source code is not released. I did not try to build those programs from source.
[1] https://github.com/Kwamecorp/Fairphone _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
Thanks to Tobias and Torsten for clarifying.
Hello Carsten, Tobias and Torsten, and thanks for this discussion! I was also under the impression the Fairphone was a lot better on the FLOSS front than what it appears...
I just went to write this on their forum:
I'm a free software activist and just received my second batch Fairphone.
Basically, I believe the "fair" solution as regards to software is that we should always have the right to run, study, modify and redistribute any software we use - which is rather a prerequisite for "owning" it, so having 100% free software is very much in the Fairphone's spirit. ...
I wrote a short reply to keep the topic active in the Fairphone forum. Maybe if we all chime in we can get their attention :-)
Best regards, Mats
On 08/02/2014 10:22 AM, Mats Sjöberg wrote:
Hello Carsten, Tobias and Torsten, and thanks for this discussion! I was also under the impression the Fairphone was a lot better on the FLOSS front than what it appears...
I just went to write this on their forum:
I'm a free software activist and just received my second batch Fairphone.
Basically, I believe the "fair" solution as regards to software is that we should always have the right to run, study, modify and redistribute any software we use - which is rather a prerequisite for "owning" it, so having 100% free software is very much in the Fairphone's spirit. ...
I wrote a short reply to keep the topic active in the Fairphone forum. Maybe if we all chime in we can get their attention :-)
Hi Mats
Thanks for the support!
Just to follow up: A member of the Faiprhone community with some interest in free software wrote a quite considerate response, in which he basically explained that the Fairphone is a small project and right now has more focus on mineral sourcing and working conditions and transparency of processes etc. than on software freedom, but want to be free software-friendly in the long run.
The same community member then started a thread to list non-free software + suggestions of alternatives, so we can at least be informed and use a free alternative where possible:
https://forum.fairphone.com/t/a-collection-of-non-free-as-in-freedom-softwar...
This is a step in the right direction, and I still feel better about the Fairphone than about the many standard Android systems where you can't uninstall Google Apps. Since they apparently do want to support free software in the long run, I think the project with its focus on transparence and ethical sourcing is a very good match for the free software community. Only we need to keep reminding them that free software should be a priority. :-)