diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/android-and-users-freedom.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/android-and-users-freedom.html | 313 |
1 files changed, 313 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/android-and-users-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/android-and-users-freedom.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..40678ea --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/android-and-users-freedom.html @@ -0,0 +1,313 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<title>Android and Users' Freedom +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/android-and-users-freedom.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Android and Users' Freedom</h2> +<p>by Richard Stallman<br />First published in <em><a +href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman"> +The Guardian</a></em></p> + +<hr class="thin" /> + +<p class="comment"> +To what extent does Android respect the freedom of its users? For a +computer user that values freedom, that is the most important question +to ask about any software system.</p> + +<p>In the <a href="http://fsf.org">free/libre software movement</a>, we +develop software that respects users' freedom, so we and you can escape +from software that doesn't. By contrast, the idea of “open +source” focuses on how to develop code; it is a different current +of thought whose principal value is <a +href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">code +quality rather than freedom</a>. Thus, the concern here is not whether +Android is “<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">open</a>”, +but whether it allows users to be free.</p> + +<p>Android is an operating system primarily for mobile phones and +other devices, which +consists of Linux (Torvalds' kernel), some libraries, a Java platform +and some applications. Linux aside, the software of Android versions +1 and 2 was mostly developed by Google; Google released it under the +Apache 2.0 license, which is a lax free software license without +<a href="/licenses/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>.</p> + +<p>The version of Linux included in Android is not entirely free +software, since it contains nonfree “binary blobs” (just +like Torvalds' version of Linux), some of which are really used in some +Android devices. Android platforms use other nonfree firmware, too, +and nonfree libraries. Aside from those, the source code of Android +versions 1 and 2, as released by Google, is free software—but this +code is insufficient to run the device. Some of the applications that +generally come with Android are nonfree, too.</p> + +<div class="announcement comment"> +<p><em>Support the <a href="http://FreeYourAndroid.org/">Free Your +Android</a> campaign.</em></p> +</div> + +<p>Android is very different from the <a +href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU/Linux operating +system</a> because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about +the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the +kernel. People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the +entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make +paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it +isn't Linux.”(<a href="#linuxnote">1</a>) Absent this confusion, +the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, +Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different, because all they have in +common is Linux.</p> + +<p>Within Android, Linux the kernel remains a separate program, with its +source code under <a href="/licenses/gpl-2.0.html">GNU GPL +version 2</a>. To combine Linux with code under the Apache 2.0 license +would be copyright infringement, since GPL version 2 and Apache 2.0 are +<a href="/licenses/license-list.html#apache2">incompatible</a>. +Rumors that Google has somehow converted Linux to the Apache license are +erroneous; Google has no power to change the license on the code of +Linux, and did not try. If the authors of Linux allowed its use under <a +href="/licenses/gpl.html">GPL version 3</a>, +then that code could be combined with Apache-licensed code, and the +combination could be released under GPL version 3. But Linux has not +been released that way.</p> + +<p>Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public +License for Linux, but the Apache license on the rest of Android does +not require source release. Google said it would never publish the +source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux). Android 3.1 source code +was also withheld, making Android 3, apart from Linux, nonfree +software pure and simple.</p> + +<p>Google said it withheld the 3.0 source code because it was buggy, and +that people should wait for the next release. That may be good advice +for people who simply want to run the Android system, but the users +should be the ones to decide this. Anyway, developers and tinkerers +who want to include some of the changes in their own versions could +use that code just fine.</p> + +<p>Fortunately, Google later released the source code for Android 3.* +when it released version 4 (also with source code). The problem above +turned out to be a temporary aberration rather than a policy shift. +However, what happens once may happen again.</p> + +<p>In any case, most of the source code of various versions of Android +has been released as free software. Does that mean that products using +those Android versions respect users' freedom? No, for several +reasons.</p> + +<p>First of all, most of them contain nonfree Google applications for +talking to services such as YouTube and Google Maps. These are +officially not part of Android, but that doesn't make the product ok. +Many of the free applications available for earlier versions of +Android have +been <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/"> +replaced by nonfree applications</a>; in 2013 Android devices appeared +which <a href="http://www.androidbeat.com/2013/12/new-google-play-edition-devices-lack-photo-gallery-app-use-google/"> +provided no way to view photos except through a nonfree Google+ +app</a>. In 2014 Google announced +that <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/android-wear-auto-and-tv-save-you-from-skins-and-oems-from-themselves/">Android +versions for TVs, watches and cars would be largely nonfree.</a> +</p> + +<p>Most Android devices come with the nonfree Google Play software +(formerly “Android Market”). This software invites users +with a Google account to install nonfree apps. It also has a back +door with which Google can forcibly install or deinstall apps. (This +probably makes it a universal back door, though that is not proved.) +Google Play is officially not part of Android, but that doesn't make +it any less bad. +</p> + +<p>Google has moved many basic general facilities into the +nonfree <a href="https://blog.grobox.de/2016/the-proprietarization-of-android-google-play-services-and-apps/">Google +Play Services library</a>. If an app's own code is free software but +it depends on Google Play Services, that app as a whole is effectively +nonfree; it can't run on a free version of Android, such as Replicant. +</p> + +<p>If you value freedom, you don't want the nonfree apps that Google +Play offers. To install free Android apps, you don't need Google +Play, because you can get them +from <a href="http://f-droid.org">f-droid.org</a>. +</p> + +<p>Android products also come with nonfree libraries. These are +officially not part of Android, but since various Android +functionalities depend on them, they are part of any real Android +installation.</p> + +<p>Even the programs that are officially part of Android may not +correspond to the source code Google releases. Manufacturers may +change this code, and often they don't release the source code for +their versions. The GNU GPL requires them to distribute the code for +their versions of Linux, assuming they comply. The rest of the code, +under the lax Apache license, does not require them to release the +source version that they really use.</p> + +<p>One user discovered that many of the programs in the Android system +that came with his phone +were <a href="http://www.beneaththewaves.net/Projects/Motorola_Is_Listening.html">modified +to send personal data to Motorola.</a> Some manufacturers add +a <a href="http://androidsecuritytest.com/features/logs-and-services/loggers/carrieriq/"> +hidden general surveillance package such as Carrier IQ.</a></p> + +<p><a href="http://replicant.us">Replicant</a> is the free version of +Android. The Replicant developers have replaced many nonfree +libraries, for certain device models. The nonfree apps are excluded, +but you certainly don't want to use those. By contrast, CyanogenMod +(another modified version of Android) is nonfree, as it contains some +nonfree programs.</p> + +<p>Many Android devices are “tyrants”: they are designed so users +cannot install and run their own modified software, only the versions +approved by some company. In that situation, the executables are not +free even if they were made from sources that are free and available +to you. However, some Android devices can be “rooted” so +users can install different software.</p> + +<p>Important firmware or drivers are generally proprietary also. These +handle the phone network radio, WiFi, bluetooth, GPS, 3D graphics, the +camera, the speaker, and in some cases the microphone too. On some +models, a few of these drivers are free, and there are some that you +can do without—but you can't do without the microphone or the +phone network radio.</p> + +<p>The phone network firmware comes preinstalled. If all it did was +sit there and talk to the phone network when you wish, we could regard +it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a +computing device must be free, we can overlook preinstalled firmware +that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the +user that it's a program rather than a circuit.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. +Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are +implemented.</p> + +<p>On most Android devices, this firmware has so much control that it +could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls +the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main +computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace +whatever free software you have installed. With some, perhaps all, +models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware to +overwrite the rest of the software in the device. The point of free +software is that we have control of our software and our computing; +a system with a back door doesn't qualify. While any computing system +might <em>have</em> bugs, these devices can <em>be</em> bugs. (Craig +Murray, +in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/aug/12/politics">Murder +in Samarkand</a>, relates his involvement in an intelligence operation +that remotely converted an unsuspecting target's non-Android portable +phone into a listening device.)</p> + +<p>In any case, the phone network firmware in an Android phone is not +equivalent to a circuit, because the hardware allows installation of +new versions and this is actually done. Since it is proprietary +firmware, in practice only the manufacturer can make new +versions—users can't.</p> + +<p>Putting these points together, we can tolerate nonfree phone +network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't +take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when +and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. In +other words, it has to be equivalent to circuitry, and that circuitry +must not be malicious. There is no technical obstacle to building an +Android phone which has these characteristics, but we don't know of +any.</p> + +<p>Android is not a self-hosting system; development for Android needs +to be done on some other system. The tools in Google's +“software development kit” (SDK) appear to be free, +but it is hard work to check this. The definition files for certain +Google APIs are nonfree. Installing the SDK requires signing a +proprietary software license, which you should refuse to sign. +<a href="http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/ReplicantSDK"> +Replicant's SDK</a> is a free replacement.</p> + +<p>Recent press coverage of Android focuses on the patent wars. During +20 years of campaigning for the abolition of software patents, we have +warned such wars could happen. Software patents could force +elimination of features from Android, or even make it unavailable. +See <a href="http://endsoftpatents.org">endsoftpatents.org</a> for more +information about why software patents must be abolished.</p> + +<p>However, the patent attacks and Google's responses are not directly +relevant to the topic of this article: how Android products partly +approach an ethically system of distribution, and how they fall +short. This issue merits the attention of the press too.</p> + +<p>Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free +software portable phone, but there is a long way to go, and Google is +taking it in the wrong direction. Hackers are working +on <a href="http://replicant.us">Replicant</a>, but it's a big job to +support a new device model, and there remains the problem of the +firmware. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably +less bad than Apple or Windows phones, they cannot be said to +respect your freedom.</p> + +<hr class="thin" /> + +<ol> +<li id="linuxnote">The extreme example of this confusion appears in +the site linuxonandroid.com, which offers help to “install Linux +[sic] on your Android devices.” This is entirely false: what +they are installing is a version of the GNU system, <em>excluding</em> +Linux, which is already present as part of Android. Since that site +supports only <a href="/distros/distros.html">nonfree GNU/Linux +distros</a>, we do not recommend it. +</li> +</ol> + +<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general, + all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about + verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking + with the webmasters first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document + and that it is like this: "2001, 2002", not this: "2001-2002". --> +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a +href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a +href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other +corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a +href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for +information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p> +</div> + +<p>Copyright © 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/02/09 07:43:36 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |