[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 31 May 2010 13:59:47 +0100 Simon Williams <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 31/05/10 13:26, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:41:55 +0100 > > Simon Williams<simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Important question to ask before buying an open source phone. Can I just > >> read the code or can I actually get modifications onto my device? > > > > You're assuming that the on-phone distro is compatible with your > > desktop distro so that you can build modifications without requiring a > > whole new SDK. The two usage models are too far apart in most cases. > > It's not just an issue of cross-building (which is hard enough), it's > > switching the fundamental system from an overly complex desktop > > multi-user configuration to a minimal single-user configuration. In > > Debian, that often means removing coreutils and using busybox. > > I wasn't referring to using desktop code on phones. I was talking about > modifications to the phones existing system. Yes, it probably has a > different SDK and cross-compiling system, but that's irrelevant. Sadly, it's not. You still need to isolate the modification from the rest of the system config. > Example: Say I have an Android phone and I want to do something with the > hardware that isn't possible without modifications to the kernel. > The source on Android is available, so I can make these changes and use > them in the SDK virtual device, or on a developer device. But (apart > from hacks), it is not possible for me to get these changes onto my phone. GPLv3 won't give you a means to get modifications onto the device either. Getting your changes onto the phone is merely a question of access. If you've got physical access to the machine, there are always ways of achieving such access. You might consider those hacks but there is no sense in excluding devices merely because they don't come with a desktop-style installer. Whether the software was originally open source or proprietary makes no odds - you have the device, you automatically have full access, all you need is the tools and the knowledge of how to use them. Nothing to do with licences. Take a look at the kind of methods used by RockBox - once you have physical access to the hardware, you can always modify the software on it - within the available storage space constraints. The existing system is just a filesystem which can be converted to a filesystem image which can then be loop mounted and modified before being put back onto the device. It's not "apt-get install" but it is a method of getting your modifications onto the phone and it has nothing to do with what kind of software is involved. You don't even need a min-SD slot or USB if you have appropriate hardware or tools. Open source / free software does not mandate that you have easy ways to modify it - only that you are *able* to modify and to legally distribute those modifications. Easy or obvious setup/installation tools are a desktop phenomenon - the desktop model. An open source (or even free software) phone is a different model which nearly always uses customised methods for "installation" of updates or changes. If you prefer, one of your modifications could be to implement a system to get other updates onto the device. Depending on your perspective, that could be seen as a backdoor, a security hole, a bug or a feature. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpeWcaN6z8mw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html