Moto explains why they locked the bootloader

[Darkseider]

What IP? Really? They use off the shelf parts, including the SoC, and throw it together in a case. I am not a lawyer but my understanding is as follows. The operating system is open source and under the Apache license. I am sure that some of the software that Motorola includes stock on Android is licensed in part or wholly under the GPL v3. In which case according to the Apache license the entire OS and everything contained therein falls under the GPL V3.

GPL compatibility

The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software licence, compatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL).[6]
However, the Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache License (as of 2007) to be incompatible with the previous GPL versions 1 and 2.[7][8]
It should be noted, however, that there is a one-way incompatibility between the Apache version 2 and GPL version 3 licenses, in that you cannot include GPL version 3 code in an Apache project without activating the requirement that the entire project be relicensed under the GPL version 3.[9]

In which case by encrypting the boot loader and denying the ability to root the device is a breech of the GPL V3 because even if the source code is available it cannot be modified for use on the device due to these restrictions. Any one else following this?

EDIT: I just contacted the FSF asking this very question to see if there is any merit to my ramblings. I will keep you updated with their response if I get one.

This is where I take issue with your stance. I fully appreciate the people that WANT to flash custom ROMs for their own benefit and in turn will not be buying the device. That's their choice and I support that. I do NOT understand the sense of entitlement some people have when it comes to the device. Rather than saying "the phone doesn't support my needs, I will look elsewhere", the approach is "I am going to boycott, sue, march outside their offices until they MAKE it the way I want it". I understand your desire to prevent future phones from other manufacturers to follow suit, but the only way to do that is to speak with the wallet. No matter the outrage on enthusiast forums, if the phone sells well that's that.

Even though this article is from 2007, it points out some key things about handset makers and their own proprietary software.

Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android

Availability of Android under the ASL will ensure that a broader number of companies will be able to adopt the platform and build on top of it without having to expose the inner workings of proprietary technologies that give them a competitive advantage.

Well said... i just dont understand droiders would want to stifle innovation or create an environment where phones would cost us 700.00-800.00 to cover lost revenues.

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."

 

[sin vicious]

This is the most ridiculous post ever.

First, your made up % of rooted users is pure conjecture and probably not even ground in reality. Where'd you get that number? From thin air?

Second, Motorola does not get $500 per phone, not even close. They are the second step, maybe third, in the manufacturing process and would not even get close to retail price. According to iSuppli, the hardware in the droid comes out to 187.75. This does NOT include any R&D, marketing or anything else Motorola does. Then when Best buy gets (or whomever), they probably buy them for $300 or $350 ($100 profit at best for Motorola), and so on and so forth.

Third, you are not accounting for the warranty and replacement costs that someone who bricks their phone or messes something up that Motorola has to deal with if they make it easily rootable.

So no, it's not even close to what you are saying. And while I don't like it, I don't blame Motorola for just eliminating the user who tinkers factor out of their warranty issues.

Then instead of making it hard or impossible to root and putting an encrypted bootloader on it just make it 100% open, period, end of story. This way if a user so chooses to root he/she can without fear of bricking a device while trying to root it or load a custom ROM. Make it as easily recoverable as the Droid if something go loopy using the .SBF. End of problem. A minority of people will take advantage of the flexibility compared to those that don't but in either case both camps are happy and will continue to support Motorola. In the current scenario they have alienated quite a few people in the process and may just continue to further alienate the "I don't cares" as well if they become even more restrictive which isn't out of the question either.

So do you believe Motorola should forgo profits, so a small portion of the community can get their freak on?

 

[Darkseider]

Then instead of making it hard or impossible to root and putting an encrypted bootloader on it just make it 100% open, period, end of story. This way if a user so chooses to root he/she can without fear of bricking a device while trying to root it or load a custom ROM. Make it as easily recoverable as the Droid if something go loopy using the .SBF. End of problem. A minority of people will take advantage of the flexibility compared to those that don't but in either case both camps are happy and will continue to support Motorola. In the current scenario they have alienated quite a few people in the process and may just continue to further alienate the "I don't cares" as well if they become even more restrictive which isn't out of the question either.

So do you believe Motorola should forgo profits, so a small portion of the community can get their freak on?

Do tell how would they be losing profits? I would really love to hear the rationalization of this one.

 

[sin vicious]

So do you believe Motorola should forgo profits, so a small portion of the community can get their freak on?

Do tell how would they be losing profits? I would really love to hear the rationalization of this one.

As listed on a earlier post:

1. How much support is used because of bricking (employment costs)
2. How much revenue is lost in potential realestate space (trial sofware)
3. Loss of IP going into other phones that were not properly liscensed

 

[Darkseider]

Do tell how would they be losing profits? I would really love to hear the rationalization of this one.

As listed on a earlier post:

1. How much support is used because of bricking (employment costs)
2. How much revenue is lost in potential realestate space (trial sofware)
3. Loss of IP going into other phones that were not properly liscensed

OK and I addressed bullet point 1. Using the .SBF method as currently used on the Moto Droid bricking isn't happening. Point 2 is moot simply because said trial software being removed by someone who roots the device and installs a custom ROM afterward is no different than someone ignoring/never using the trial software. Loss of IP? What IP? Android is open sourced under the Apache license and partly through the GPL V2. The only IP Motorola could possibly have is some widgets on the phone, in which case, they can be licensed under something other than Apache or the GPL assuming that violates neither. Everything else from the Kernel to the OS is open source, free as in beer and free as in speech. So again. There is no loss of revenue at all for Motorola and in fact I would argue just the opposite. Seeing as how Linux has taken over the server room due to its' openness, Android can do the same assuming that handset manufacturers let it.

 

[h_10]

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.

 

[RW-1]

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 ...

 

[parker34]

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!!

 

[Mojo]

ah oh... darksider is fired up now!! LMAO... please continue with discussion I am getting a kick out of the back and fourth point of veiws

 

[Darkseider]

@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.

 

[Skull One]

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?

 

[Darkseider]

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?

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.

 

[JonKyu]

@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.

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

 

[garath]

This is where I take issue with your stance. I fully appreciate the people that WANT to flash custom ROMs for their own benefit and in turn will not be buying the device. That's their choice and I support that. I do NOT understand the sense of entitlement some people have when it comes to the device. Rather than saying "the phone doesn't support my needs, I will look elsewhere", the approach is "I am going to boycott, sue, march outside their offices until they MAKE it the way I want it". I understand your desire to prevent future phones from other manufacturers to follow suit, but the only way to do that is to speak with the wallet. No matter the outrage on enthusiast forums, if the phone sells well that's that.

Even though this article is from 2007, it points out some key things about handset makers and their own proprietary software.

Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android

Availability of Android under the ASL will ensure that a broader number of companies will be able to adopt the platform and build on top of it without having to expose the inner workings of proprietary technologies that give them a competitive advantage.

Well said... i just dont understand droiders would want to stifle innovation or create an environment where phones would cost us 700.00-800.00 to cover lost revenues.

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."

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

We are sometimes asked why Apache Software License 2.0 is the preferred license for Android. For userspace (that is, non-kernel) software, we do in fact prefer ASL2.0 (and similar licenses like BSD, MIT, etc.) over other licenses such as LGPL.

Android is about freedom and choice. The purpose of Android is promote openness in the mobile world, but we don't believe it's possible to predict or dictate all the uses to which people will want to put our software. So, while we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would often force them to do so.

 

[abaez]

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 ...

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")