A majority (a large one) of users still want the Google stuff. You don’t sell Android phones in numbers without an Android with all the Google stuff.
You can get impact investors all you want … you don’t sell, so you don’t make your statement, so you’re finished.
And LineageOS … could end tomorrow (slight exaggeration). It is a voluntary community effort. And there’s no chain of responsibility if something in LineageOS doesn’t work.
Something doesn’t work, and the community can’t fix it, because the fault is in AOSP? Good luck with getting that fixed. The next major Android version will be out in a matter of months and Google will not care much.
You can’t run a business on that.
After i wrote this i realized that it sounded very agressive, which wasn’t my intention. Imagin a neutral voice in your head when reding this.
Why is the source code not ready on release of the chip and delivered with it? When Fairphone has to wait for the code then qualcomm is violating the gpl too. However then FP decides to release the phone anyway before qualcomm fixed the licensing issue, they also violate the gpl.
This sounds very drastic but legally speaking it’s like torrenting a music album and maybe buy the cd 3 month later.
The Android supplied by Fairphone for the Fairphone 3 is based on AOSP (as every Android is), but it is certified by Google. This certification is needed to sell the phones with all the Google stuff preinstalled.
But on the plus side this also means that there’s a business relationship between Google and Fairphone, and so Fairphone can claim support from Google if there’s something wrong at Google’s end.
The LineageOS community can’t have that relationship and more or less has to take AOSP as it is. Google of course still fixes and changes AOSP, but a random Custom ROM community can’t hold them accountable for anything.
As far as I know the hardware related stuff (like kernel) comes from Qualcomm via Codeaurora - it can’t be too hard to publish just that plus some tweaks and patches for phone related hardware. This process should indeed be the other way round: publish sources first, then derive a production image.
Yeah, you know, Fairphone has to do everything everyone wants, the way they want it. And pronto please.
Just because they strive to be fair or at least fairer than the competitors? Really?
I have the impression - from this forum - that the open-source/data privacy community has the most demanding and unforgiving members in their ranks.
That’s my perception only of course; but we should not forget, that Fairphone is a business/company, that has to struggle to stay in business. I can only imagine, what it all takes to achieve this goal, in competition to the global players. And they are a small company with a limited numer of employees, having just launched a new - revolutionary - phone to the mass-market.
No, but it shows how serious this is taken, even from companies that have the manpower. I do have the impression they take that seriously, but they are not the only company in the chain providing the source.
And as @BertG said, the community is very demanding, see the reactions when FP had to stop support for FP1 or the problems with FP2 parts and support from qualcomm. The industry definitely is not what many (most) people would like it to be
I have been there twice, at Fairphone office in Amsterdam.
The were quite busy, but they gave me a little tour around the office for about half an hour,even though they were busy.
The product Fairphone is only what you see from the company, a certified B-Corporation, that is trying to gain higher goals than just creating the phone what you probably hold in your hands.
Certifications (i. e. “Fairtrade Gold”) just don’t fall down from sky, especially when you get them as the very first company in the business.
Maybe it is expedient to respect these affords, then to assume the FP employees waste their time with a (horrible manufactured) PS3.
True - I pray those companies don’t serve as examples for best practice regarding FOSS matters…
Still, for the FP2 Fairphone wrote in a blog post (I think…) that both FPOS and FPOOS are derived from the same source which means that Google services are added afterwards. Why has this exemplary method not proliferated to the FP3? (I know, wrong place to ask…) I bet in the long run, for which both devices are made, this would save Fairphone a lot of resources. I’m still hoping.
Or could it mean, that it’s the same source removing the Google services. That’s the way I remember it. Otherwise the FPOOS would have been developed first, wouldn’t it?
Asking about the legal stuff is totally fine by me, even desired.
My annoyance is with all the accusations against Fairphone, like this one.
No one here has any background knowledge.
What if e.g. Qualcomm promised delivering the source code at a given date and did not comply later?
Should Fairphone really have waited another 3 or 6 months, just to keep the GPL community smiling?
And that would have been e.g.:
Postponing an announced press conference,
Putting all contracts with resellers on hold,
Organizing and paying for a storage for all the manufactured phones, they can’t deliver.
And when @lklaus happens to point out, that the phone market with regard to GPL in general is way less compliant, this stating of simple facts is called whataboutism.
Sorry, I really don’t get that. Especially since the standards FP obviously should meet can be nothing less than perfect. No matter what; I have the feeling it will never be enough for some people.
Developing and selling a smartphone is just a tad more complicated than buying and torrenting a CD.