Android is it really free and open source?The free and open-source mobile operating system from Google are often the first arguments of the manufacturers to equip their devices and users anxious not to be locked up by Apple or Microsoft. But in fact, Android is not open it.A report published by VisionMobile Android class in July last among eight major open source projects by comparing their degree of openness:
This score is based on data of 13 based on criteria such as access to the code, its mechanical, a development schedule public in decision-making, the possibility for developers to really influence the project and 'make derivatives freely and, finally, a community structure that makes developers equal.
This is the development environment (IDE) Eclipse is at the head of the ranking with a score of 84%. Android him, gets a score of 23% which tends to suggest that is not open source.
Why?
To understand this low score, we must return to the definition of open source. An open-source software must, of course, to access, modify and redistribute the code as possible, under free licenses. Developers should be able to have a vision of the timing of changes to the software and should not be discriminated against them. All developers must be equal.
For Google, the open-source means you can download and compile the code for Android. But the lack of control by the firm on devices that use and lack of equality in the developer community that produces badly needed to open the operating system, although perfectly legal for any user to download the code, use it or redistribute it.
Far from being an open OS
The main problem is, in fact, manufacturers of smartphones and tablets, which are able to recreate a closed environment from Android. Operators also encourage them to do so by claiming that, otherwise, the network security would be endangered. These guards prevent users from installing the OS version they prefer and require a modified version by the manufacturer.
Richard Stallman, the source of GNU and the license of the same name, says: "Some models are designed to prevent the owner to install and modify the software. In this situation, the executables are not free, even if made from a free source that is available to you. " He distinguishes between free and open source. Free highlights the philosophy of the project while the open-source focuses on the development method.
These manufacturers together in the Open Handset Alliance, do not schedule on the future development of Android to other developers that those who belong to it. And its operation is rather opaque, since the group has no legal form of communication process and regular meetings.
Also, the SDK was not updated for a long time before the arrival of Android 4.0. Only a small group of developers benefited from new releases, creating a de facto hierarchy in the community. Impossible, therefore, for a developer in his corner to take advantage of the new OS and influence the development of Android.
Finally, Richard Stallman points out that Android is not free because the version of Linux used for its core is not either. "The version of Linux included in Android is not entirely free software, since it contains non-free pieces of code (the" binary blobs "), as the version of Linux Torvalds, some of which are actually used in machines running Android. The Android platform using non-free firmware as well as non-free libraries. Otherwise, the source code for versions 1 and 2 such as Android made by Google are free, but code is insufficient to run the unit. Some applications that usually come with Android are not free. Google has complied with the rules of the GPL (General Public License or General Public License) for Linux, the Apache license, but the rest Android does not require to show the code. "
Consequences
The argument to open Android was often made by manufacturers and customers as a benefit compared to iOS Apple or Windows Mobile and Windows Phone from Microsoft. But it is found that the Google system is not so open that. Similarly, if manufacturers could use it for free, Microsoft now requires royalties for most of them under the threat of patent infringement trial. Apple, meanwhile, has several legal battles, the most famous, against Samsung, led to a ban on the Korean market some of its products in several countries. Of free OS is disappearing.
While it is possible to bypass these locks "root" the phone (with root access, the user has full control over the system), these "protections" are not a sign of openness. Users must turn to alternative distributions, such as CyanogenMod, which require real technical knowledge to be able to install. But it's the only way for them to have a real open system in which they have a true control.
Richard Stallman explains that while the Android code was made available, that's not why Android respects the freedoms of the user: "First of all, most versions include non-free applications Google to communicate with services such as YouTube and Google Maps. These are not formally part of Android, but that does not make a good product so far. There is also the presence of non-free libraries. Qu 'they are part of Android or not is debatable, what is important is that many features depend on it. "
"Even the executable that are formally part of Android can not match the code versions of Google. Manufacturers may change the code, and often they do not publish the source code versions. The GNU GPL requires them, in theory, to redistribute the code of their versions of Linux. The rest of the code under the Apache License does not require them to publish the source code versions they actually use "Stallman says.
The myth of Android as open-source and totally free to the community of developers and users is disappearing. It is not, of course, welcome the initiative of Google makes its code available. But manufacturers abuse it without the Mountain View company blame them. Yet it is they who were the first to be blamed.