Moto explains why they locked the bootloader

Discussion in 'Motorola Droid X' started by titans, Jul 14, 2010.

  1. Darkseider
    Offline

    Darkseider New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In response to the Apache License there is GPL V2 code used in Android. Due to this anything associated with that particular code falls under GPL V2. An clipping from the Motorola Milestone forums regarding the legality.

    ""No it really isn't. Some people are just obviously not really well informed in the topic, which unfortunately doesn't prevent them from expressing a strong opinion based on half-truths and misinformation. Unfortunately, fact is: Motorola is not obligated to remove signaturechecking just because they're using (partly) GPLed code in their phones."

    The fact is that Tivoization under GPLv2 has never brought to court so to say Moto is NOT breaking GPLv2 is at least unproved. Even if the use of signed images (and not publishing the keys) is allowed Moto is STILL violating the GPL on several other points.

    Read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.htm (these guys won over 100 GPL cases in and out of court and did not loose a single one, so I guess that they know the subject rather well)

    GPLv2: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. ”

    "What are "scripts used to control installation"?
    After having translated software from its source code form into executable format, the program quite often needs to be installed into the system. The process of installation is often automatized by installation scripts. Exactly those scripts are referred to by the GPL. Please note that this is of special practical importance in the case of embedded devices, since the executable program(s) need to be somehow installed onto the device. If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program.

    Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required to install a (modified) version of the compiled program. "

    Most definition I see of the Install/installation of a computer software component define it simular to this : "Installation (or setup) of a program (including drivers, plugins, etc.) is the act of putting the program onto a computer system so that it can be executed."

    So by using a commonly accepted definition someone (preferable a judge in a GPL court) can conclude that a program that is copied to the device but does not execute (due to signature check) is NOT installed, GPLv2 requires it CAN be installed by provided scripts hence Motorola IS violating GPLv2."
  2. sin vicious
    Offline

    sin vicious New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tamarac, Fl.
  3. Darkseider
    Offline

    Darkseider New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. sin vicious
    Offline

    sin vicious New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tamarac, Fl.
  5. Darkseider
    Offline

    Darkseider New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. h_10
    Offline

    h_10 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i admit that i pull my numbers out of thin air but we'll never know any of these figures just like we'll never know the "costs" incurred by moto because of rooted phones. htc doesn't seem to have a problem w/ these costs (yet?). the point being that motorola has to know that they are going to upset a certain percentage, however big or small, of their potential customer base. i'm hoping that they factored that into their decision.

    as i stated in another thread, it all comes down to choices. moto made their choice. we as consumers can choose to buy their products w/ the encrypted boot loaders or buy any one of the comparable android devices made by other companies which aren't locked.

    unless your are a customer of apple, you win no matter what.
  7. RW-1
    Offline

    RW-1 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Nazareth, PA
    1. None!

    Please give me evidence of a newb calling Motorola saying "Help me help me, I bricked my phone doing something that is not supported but allowed by you".

    Those lemmings are on par with the ones calling VZ saying they are wi fi tethering on the droid rooted, ran up 50Gb of bandwidth and wondered why they were "overcharged" on their bill.

    for the other two, I stand with DS ...
  8. parker34
    Offline

    parker34 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Al
    My biggest problem with this is not being able to change the notification bar...oh well at least the Droid 1 will continue to have one of the biggest Developer communities behind it!!
  9. Mojo
    Offline

    Mojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    S.W Missouri
    ah oh... darksider is fired up now!! LMAO... please continue with discussion :D I am getting a kick out of the back and fourth point of veiws
  10. Darkseider
    Offline

    Darkseider New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    @sin vicious

    The only motive behind Motorola's decision to lock the bootloader on the Droid X and all upcoming devices is nothing more than control and forced obsolescence. No more no less. They want you to buy widgets and if Widget X doesn't get an "official upgrade" to the next operating system even though it is perfectly capable of running it you get forced into buying Widget Y that can. This is why the Droid continues to stand next to the Nexus One as the PREMIER Android device. Simply put you can GUARANTEE there will be no official Gingerbread update for the Droid. With that being said you can also guarantee that the Droid will have Gingerbread running on it when the AOSP is updated. Same as the G1 running Froyo. Motorola has stepped onto a slippery slope.
  11. Skull One
    Offline

    Skull One New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This looks like a fun discussion. So I will throw out a possible answer.

    Can it be something as simple as they are embarrassed that a group of coders, not under their control, can turn out a better software product in 1/5th time and the no longer want that to happen?
  12. Darkseider
    Offline

    Darkseider New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SKULL! Your theory is just as plausible as any other. In any case if your theory is in fact the correct one it still does not give Motorola a reason/excuse to take these measures. If anything like Google they should extract the good parts and include it in their "official release" in order to improve on it even more. Look at Google's response to FM Radio on the Nexus. Then in turn look at the XDA devs response. A working FM Radio on the Nexus. This is how it should be a symbiotic relationship. Instead what Motorola has done is killed off the better part of the dev community for their products by locking them out completely.
  13. JonKyu
    Offline

    JonKyu New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Provo, UT
    Well said and I agree with everything you said so far. Lol man I hope the 2ghz beast doesn't disappoint. Otherwise I'm kinda out of options lol.


    Sent from my Tapatalk using Droid
  14. garath
    Offline

    garath New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are absolutely correct - that is, if Android used GPL. The exact reasons you cite is why Google (not Motorola) opted to use Apache Software License.

    From here:

    Licenses | Android Open Source

  15. abaez
    Offline

    abaez New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are PLENTY of people in the XDA forums who used a bad update (unRevoked) from the recent major OTA and totally busted their 4G on their EVO. Many of them have returned/exchanged their phones because they could not fix it. Here are two I found with a quick glance. You can bet there are others.

    xda-developers - View Single Post - 4G Troubles? Get Insight Here (Don't be deceived by fake "fixes")

    xda-developers - View Single Post - 4G Troubles? Get Insight Here (Don't be deceived by fake "fixes")
  16. sin vicious
    Offline

    sin vicious New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tamarac, Fl.
    Sorry had a meeting to attend to... Gotta love deploying docis 3.0..

    This i my point exactly..
  17. Darkseider
    Offline

    Darkseider New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes Android uses the Apache license but it also has code, being in the linux kernel patches themselves, that are GPL V2 and because of this anything that relies on these patches is by default covered under the GPL V2 as stated in the excerpt from the article I posted. So regardless of the licensing being touted by Google, et al. the GPL V2 comes into play in this instance. Which is why I contacted the FSF for further clarification as to whether or not there is a legal issue. IF there is I will then request that this issue be pursued and rectified. Either by removing the GPL'd code which would essentially cripple Android OR by forcing the hardware manufacturers whether it be Motorola, Samsung, etc... to open their bootloaders and allow root access easily and have a safe backup and restore method similar to that used on the Droid with a .SBF file. Richard Stallman is coming to visit my workplace in a few weeks to talk with some friends and I am going to ask his opinion on this as well to see if there is any merit.
  18. steven.rn
    Offline

    steven.rn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
  19. sin vicious
    Offline

    sin vicious New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tamarac, Fl.
  20. garath
    Offline

    garath New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not a lawyer and I'll be the first to admit that quite a bit of the "legalese" of the licenses go over my head. You may be right, I don't know if such a case is fruitful but you could be right.

    However, the portions of the linux kernel that fall under GPL v2 are mentioned on the page I linked and explicitly states "with system exceptions". Regardless of what those exceptions are, I believe that when Google states their reasoning for choosing the licensing they did for Android is to allow manufactures to lock down their devices (paraphrased of course), they probably looked into it.

    I understand your reasons for being upset. It's a testament to the device that it is desirable enough to cause such frustration. I don't agree with your approach to the problem, but this is the internet, no need to always agree.
Search tags for this page

bootloader license with proprietary software

,
locked bootloaders lgpl