The people who prefer a FOSS smartphone are the same people who want firmware being FOSS. These people are not being served by FP1/FP2/FP3 but by Librem 5, and as cheaper alternative (without open hardware available), PinePhone.
Personally, I’d much rather have a non-AOSP/Android smartphone with Android emulation layer than AOSP.
For people who don’t want to live with Google there are already some guides available which remove a lot if not all the proprietary software. If you combine that with F-Droid you should be good to go for the time being.
PinePhone is not available yet. Librem 5 is not available yet while costing twice as much while not being fair traid.
And as the FP is not 100% fair traid but still way better than any other phone on the market. An open source os with closed source firmware is still way better then a completly closed source os.
For example: Most linux user for example can live with nvidia drivers, but don’t want to run Windows.
Without root you can’t remove google play services. Thats the feature I’m missing on my FP3.
Hence for now you need to make the choice between fair trade and FOSS. Even though these are not binary, for now the trade off is real.
Your Nvidia example, while well intended, is terrible IMO. My opinion is that most people who use a graphics card do not need an Nvidia. If you want to support FOSS, you buy AMD or Intel GPU instead. Both FOSS drivers are great on Linux, and AMD also delivers good 3D performance.
That was not the main gist of my example. When i buy a new system i too don’t buy nvidia. But you don’t always use new hardware.
But back to toppic:
As “There are copanies worse than FP” is no excuse to violate the GPL, “There are companies better then FP” is also no excuse to violate the GPL.
On your FP go to Settings->About the Phone->Legal Notice->3rd Party Licenses->/kernel (I Hope I got the translation right my phone is set to German).
There you can read:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
True.
And that’s why @Ingo is absolutely correct with his statement.
From day one Fairphone targeted the fairtrade and the open OS communities. Resulting in just a mere 5% of customers installing something different than the “google” FPOS. Now they are even targeting the mass market.
Could you please explain, why the number of buyers wanting something different than the preinstalled Android (including google) should suddenly increase?
You might have a point, had FP not tested that kind of market with their first two phones for more than 5 years now. And with lots of alternative OSs by the way.
Result: 5% - as @Ingo pointed out.
I guess, you go around and check all the other phone manufacturers as well and complain, if they do not comply with the GPL in a perfect way, i.e. without any delay.
Anyway: Yes, you made your point and you are correct (from an academic and legal point of view). But: Nobody here knows exactly, what is going on at fairphone, so there might be good reasons, they were not able to publish the source code up to now.
What we know, is, that it is a really small company, that they have faced some troubles with their first phones, resulting in 10 weeks delivery time, that they have to service a much wider reseller net now etc.
But hey, they have not published the source code yet, are there even people working at FP that know what they are doing?
I just don’t get it. Seriously!
I really, really hope you never violate any parking rules or do some speeding, cross red traffic lights or use a train without a ticket. At least, I am sure you happily pay the fines for such offences.
I just don’t get it. Seriously!
I really, really hope you never violate any parking rules or do some speeding, cross red traffic lights or use a train without a ticket. At least, I am sure you happily pay the fines for such offences.
Please dont whataboutism.
Nobody here knows exactly, what is going on at fairphone, so there might be good reasons, they were not able to publish the source code up to now.
You are 100% wrong. There is running software on the FP3s, its no magic thing to tar an archive and provide a link. If there is no backdoor, stolen code etc… there is no reason. The phone is almost 3 month old.
There is no whataboutism.
I have just stated that you are correct.
But repeating this in this thread of a community forum won’t do anything good, but annoy other users.
Why don’t you address Fairphone directly?
And I was just wondering, if you are that rule-obeying yourselfs, since Fairphone - in my humble opinion - is not really breaking some serious rules, as long as they publish the code later. (That’ why I used my examples of really minor offences.)
I don’t know, if it is simple to publish the source code or if it is not. I don’t know if there are parts they have to exclude, because they are not allowed to publish them, due to a copyright by other parties. I don’t know if FP depends on other parties to supply information/source code, which they have not done so far. Do you? So, from my point of view, you might be correct or you might not. I don’t know, but I have some doubts about your 100% statement.
If you seriously imply, that FP is using stolen code or programming backdoors, I guess we two can stop the discussion right at this point. Up to now, they have been one of the most open companies I know of, even if they provided the source code some weeks later only.
But to me it seems, you are not really interested in other possible explanations, since I am 100% wrong.
They need to ensure it is complete, and that you have the rights to distribute that source code. That costs time and money.
If you fear backdoor(s) these are possible on physical/hardware level just as well. Or firmware level (how about the radios for starters, lol). Are Android/AOSP builds 100% reproducible? If no, another vulnerability right there.
Of course, it should be said I do applaud your preference, and we shouldn’t aim for perfectionism right away (however it is a hard problem, and there are already other projects which do aim for it). It’d already be a step in good direction if there was a FOSS version available. And this becomes easier when Fairphone releases the source. I really hope they do so ASAP. Complaining about it here, is just a waste of time though.
In the end, you have to trust a company like Fairphone at one level or another.
I dont talk about the blobs from qualcomm or ???. If there is a closed source third party module they dont have to upload it.
And I was just wondering, if you are that rule-obeying yourselfs, since Fairphone - in my humble opinion - is not really breaking some serious rules, as long as they publish the code later. (That’ why I used my examples of really minor offences.)
The GPL is clear on that point. Every customer with a FP3 has the right to get the code from FP.
Why don’t you address Fairphone directly?
I dont have a FP3 because I dont want it if there is no sc.
No i didn’t, but this does not invalidate my argument in any way.
This was clear in the frist answer i got to my original question. The 48 offtoppic post afterwards is a meta discussion between people who do care about open source and people who don’t care about open source .
At least i try to.
You are not allowed to hard link non-free code to the Linux kernel and publish the result.
That’s also a GPL Violation:
2 . You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
…
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
…
Sorry if that wasn’t clear, but it was exactly my point.
Edit: ok, probably not 100% the same. But with the given marketing and the option of installing Google-free OSes the FP2 attracted >90% people that chose it for the supply chain/repairability aspect and <10% because they (also) are interested in a free OS.
Long, but interesting discussion here. I don’t have anything to add to the various points that were made already, but here’s an idea I think I haven’t seen in this thread so far: have you considered getting in touch with support and asking for a copy of the GPL(v3)-licensed parts of the source code of the binaries running on the FP3?
Best case: you indeed receive a copy of some modified Linux Kernel source code.
Worst case: they say no without any reason, and therefore implicitly confirm their violation of the GPL.
Somewhere in between: they state a reason why it hasn’t happened yet and maybe a date when it’s gonna happen.
Or would that be an asshole move (“They just need more time, leave them alone!”)?
Needless to say I’d love to have as much sourcecode as possible available in the future as well.
You’re right, that’s pretty much what I’m talking about. I probably saw that post and forgot about it by the time I had reached the end of the thread My bad!
It does not really matter who is to blame. Fact is: selling a product without proper licensing is not legal. It’d expect even a startup to get this very basic understanding right afer their third product.
As was already posted in this thread quite a few times.
You make it sound like Fairphone is the exemption here, when up to now they in fact have been faster than almost all other companies in publishing the source code.
And as I already asked somewhere above:
Would you rather Fairphone go out of business, if they don’t get the source code from some third party, than deliver the phone and publish the source code later?
This can not seriously be a solution.
And I ask again as well:
If one is so strict and unforgiving, does that Person stick to all rules consequently, no matter the personal consequences?
You’re right, they’re sadly not the exemption here. But I don’t think it’s surprising that some customers expect software developers (those who wrote the software running the phone) to be treated fairly, especially by this company. Otherwise what’s the point of buying a fair phone compared to other unethically produced devices?
.
My bad!