Building custom ROM images for popular phones is a relatively common thing on the internet. There are a number of forums dedicated to hacking and creating custom Windows Mobile ROMs, and there’s also a community of people working on custom Android ROMs. The latter community has been up in arms over the fact that Google has sent a cease and desist letter to one of the most popular ROM hackers.
Steve Kondik, also known by his nickname Cyanogen, is an independent Android hacker who builds a custom version of the Android ROM people can install on their Android mobile phones. His version of the ROM is very popular, and is seen as actually better than the stock Google variant, especially in the performance department.
However, these custom ROM images do carry the proprietary Google applications within them, such as Android Market and Google Maps. This is not exactly something Google seems to like, as they sent a cease and desist letter to Kondik regarding his ROM images. This is rather unusual, as other mobile platform vendors have always looked the other way. Custom Windows Mobile ROMs are everywhere, and there are even entire websites dedicated to the practice. It’s all relatively harmless, as only advanced users will perofrm these tricks; if it all fails and handsets blow up in puffs of fairy dust, it’s not the vendor’s concern.
Kondik is of course not happy – to put it mildly – with the whole situation, but he is working with Google to try and find a solution. His current plan is to create a tool which will back up the Google applications from your phone’s stock Android ROM, and carry them over the custom ROM. This way, the custom ROM does not violate any copyright, but users will still have their Google applications. There are also efforts under way to replace Google’s closed bits with open source replacements.
Google itself also responded to the issue, but their response is rather dry and not very helpful. “These apps aren’t open source, and that’s why they aren’t included in the Android source code repository,” Google’s Dan Morrill states, “Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it’s done with the best of intentions.”
While Google has the right to protect its legal rights, one has to wonder whether this is really helpful when you’re claiming you’re building an open source mobile operating system and open platform, which everyone can improve upon and use in their handsets.
This does demonstrate the difference between Open-source-friendly companies and Free Software companies. I don’t want to start a flame ware, but this is a good example of where it bites you.
For further details, email [email protected]
Agreed, but like them or not, Google is currently Linux’s best shot to get mobile penetration.
Plus there’s nothing stopping an Android spin off project as Android itself is open source – it’s just a few Google specific tools that are proprietary.
What’s the big deal here? Sounds like Google doesn’t want a repeat of what happened to Redhat when certain leeches/roaches started selling Redhat iso’s on Ebay claiming that they could get support from Redhat if you bought them.
It’s one of of the reason’s Redhat clamped down on the use of it’s trademarks and I don’t blame them for it.
In the Red Hat case, they give away the software and sell support services. Selling the software with a claim that it includes a support service from Red Hat is clearly fraudulent.
Here, I don’t see a claim that Google is responsible for one flashing there phone with a different firmware. Google is not selling business support contracts either so it doesn’t really infringe on Google’s business when the consumer buys a phone and replaces the firmware themself. Heck, if the user is capable of installing an alternative ROM it’s unlikely that they expect Google to run over and support it.
To me, the point is this was probably a bad place to draw a line in the sand. What percentage of Android users are going to be running a custom ROM – 1-5%? Those people are the developer elite, the tweakers, hackers, etc. They will find a way to put your apps on after the fact quickly. So all you will have accomplished is ticking off what are probably your strongest supporters. It really does remind me of something Apple would do – they seem to love ticking off their most dedicated users.
Except that Apple has yet to sue any individual hackintosher or jailbreaker. They’ve only sued those who have chosen to make a profit from their work. Like the article points out most companies could care less about these hacks, they only care whe it starts affecting them monetarily. Google on the other hand has actively persued someone who was freely distributing his hack to a select few.
Maybe you are right, but I don’t know about a Free Software company. Each company wants to make money and will do such things, if it allows them to make more profits. Could you please give an example for a Free Software company?
Or do you mean Foundations, like Mozilla. Without thinking much about it this seems to come closes to a Free Software company.
[q Could you please give an example for a Free Software company? Or do you mean Foundations, like Mozilla. Without thinking much about it this seems to come closes to a Free Software company. [/q]
I would say Redhat fits this bill pretty well. RHEL is Free (as-in-freedom) software. That’s why Oracle and others have been able to base products off of it, although none as successful as the original.
For all those claiming Apple is the heart of all evil and Google the epitome of good:
Hahahahahahaha. What do you say now? Google is no better, no worse than basically every other company out there. I just hope this puts a stop to this “Google is for freedom” nonsense I see get spouted all over the web these days.
I certainly don’t see Google telling people they must limit what software they install on their Android phones – they’re just telling this guy he can’t redistribute their non-free software independently.
I’m sure Google would have absolutely zero issues with an individual packaging replacement software with identical functionality.
But hey, thanks for pointing out how ludicrous Apple-lovers are when it comes to arguing nonsense.
Except the software in question was free.
Free-as-in-beer is never an open license to redistribute – and it never has been.
Some software that is “free” in this fashion does come with terms allowing a user to redistribute it as long as certain conditions are met (such as all files remain unmodified, etc.), but I gather that was not granted in Google’s case – thus it’s copyright infringement to assume you can redistribute their software however you see fit without asking permission first.
Very True
So hang on, when Apple puts restrictions on what one can do with the software – namely the redistribution with non-Apple hardware and using modified/hackedup files – its considered evil. When someone creates a custom ROM image for Android, sent a cease and desist letter because of redistributing parts which cannot be redistributed – its apparently all good? talk about a double standard if I ever saw one!
Yeah except one is standard copyright law and the other is just Apple being a bitch.
(I have not seen any proof yet that Psystar actually violated a copyright)
Edited 2009-09-30 02:39 UTC
Pystar resold modified copies of Mac OS X pre-installed on their machines – but then again you deliberately IGNORE what I have written in past posts regarding this issue. I’m not surprised you do ignore then or otherwise you’d realise what you have said has no merit at all.
I deliberately ignore your past posts because they’re tiresome… and I tend to ignore most of the “Apple apologist” posts anyway, it’s usually hard to pick them apart when they confuse EULA with copyright.
IMO, there’s quite a difference from reselling something you have purchased.
For all I know, Psystar has simply replaced bits of OS X with their own versions of components, which is essentially no different than I re-selling a Windows computer that I have installed software on that replaces the built-in bits from Microsoft. In that case, I am not making a copy of a Windows HD image and giving it to all my friends, but I am reselling a purchased/modified version where the modifications are my own. I no longer have the original in my possession.
But this *does* bring up an interesting question – can I install a computer with lots of free (as in beer) software and resell it? Hmm… I never thought about that…
Ah, the smug elitist tone of the asshole – the last vestige of retreat for the scoundrel. You ignore them because I lay out in full the argument – you want to come half way through my ontological reasoning and claiming that there are missing pieces. You’re almost as pathetic as those who try and criticise science based on one theory but ignore the fact that the one theory is dependent on the understanding of half a dozen other theories.
You’re trying to address a single point in isolation when compared to the larger argument that has taken place.
No one is confusing the two – Pystar is reselling modified copies of Mac OS X and redistributing modified Mac OS X updates; which are in violation of copyright and EULA. If they were just selling machines that happen to be compatible with Mac OS X then Apple would have no case but that isn’t the situation. Pystar are redistributing modified copies of Mac OS X and Mac OS X updates – something Pystar has never denied.
Yep, there I am… the smug elitist pathetic critical asshole.
Edit: Oh, forgot ignorant…
someday maybe you’ll learn how to have civilized conversation.
Edit again: forgot scoundrel.. damn, it’s so hard to catch ’em all!
Edited 2009-09-30 03:21 UTC
Far be it from me to interfere with a good show, but you started the name calling before Kaiwai ever did. Makes you look sort of the hypocrite. As for labeling people as “Apple apologists” and the like and then saying you ignore them, tell me now: who does that say more about, them or yourself? What should I label you, a google apologist? Come on, pick a label you want for yourself and I’ll be glad to insult you with it and never read your posts no matter how well-informed they may be, simply because I’ve labeled you. See how ridiculous that is?
Yes, the Apple apologist name was over the top, my bad.
Haiku evangelist will work. I don’t actually own any Google or Apple products purchased in the last decade. (although admittedly, I use several google products).
I also tend to side with open source, but I use Windows daily for my job.
There, we have all that out on the table.
well the thing is, you can redistribute and use the apple software THAT IS OPENSOURCE aka Darwin.
It works.
The non open source stuff, cannot be copied/etc.
Just like Google actually. They just happen to have a lot more stuff on MacOSX that is closed source (because they coded most of the GUI stuff and many services).
And yes, Google is as “evil” as is any company.
Saying “we wont do evil” doesnt quite cut it.
It has the same value if I eat the last cookie in the jar and say its not me.
>> I’m sure Google would have absolutely zero issues with an individual packaging replacement software with identical functionality.
Yes, and no… at the same time.
I’m a G1 owner and I use the Cyagonen image. To be able to use it, I had to hack the phone… downgrade it, exploit a bug and install the new image. That SUCKS. I could do the same with the dev edition without hacking it, but I can’t buy it from my country.
But… why the hell I need a different image? Well… because google’s image is intensionally crippled… no Thetering? No file transferring bluetooth? No fricking download of non-android files (try to download a .zip file just so you can copy it to a internet-less computer later)…
Google should never ever accept this from HTC/T-Mobile/Whatever……. That was the main advantage of open-source: things are made to help the user, not to be in his way. I hope Palm and Nokia don’t do the same…
Too bad the OpenMoko project was not a success.
Edited 2009-09-30 11:42 UTC
What’s your real point ? I don’t get it, your comparing a company that as a record of suing, for damages, everyone they don’t like and a cease and desist order …
It’s like saying someone who got a ticket for speeding 5 km over the limit is similar to a drunk driver who killed a familly of 5.
Edited 2009-09-29 20:53 UTC
This clearly shows that companies aren’t neither good nor evil. They are companies and they simply do whatever is necessary to maximize profits. As long as it isn’t anything illegal we can only vote with our money.
Free and open source software would be nowhere without copyright law. The copyrigth law is what makes it possible for us, to ensure that our applications remains free and open. As free software developers we should respect that law even when it is not to our emediate advantage if we want to be taken seriously.
In this case, I have a hard time to see that google actually get hurt from this, but if they claim they do, this should be respected.
Frankly, these google applications are not all that good, and leave a lot of room for improvement. Given how much Cyanogen have improved the free parts of Android they could probably have made free alternatives that have blown the closed source google versions away. According to the article this is one of the alternatives the developers consider. When that happens, Google will look rather stupid.
Edited 2009-09-29 21:33 UTC
Come on, without Google Maps, Gmail and the google calendar, an android phone wouldn’t be the same. There’s no real need for the market, but the others are essential, at least to me.
Of course at least google maps can be installed ‘aftermarket’ or so I believe.
IMHO, the google applications are not that good. For one thing I don’t like to trust google with my personal information such as my contacts, my calendar events, or my e-mail, or to do lists. I want something with similar userinterface that stores data on my own servers. Google maps don’t even give voice directions, wich makes it useless while driving.
So there would be a lot of things to improve if I evver find the time to write replacements.
Something nobody seems to be considering is the fact that phones have a lot of licensed propriety software in them. Google may simply not be allowed to give this software away.
There’s also regulatory controls on phones with them being radio devices, it might not be legal to give some of that stuff away.
> Something nobody seems to be considering
> is the fact that phones [are the ultimate
> argument, the Technological *Singularity]
* They transcend any (software) freedom ethic etc.
Actually I was considering it.
And I can’t believe Google can do something wrong, either.
Edited 2009-09-30 13:18 UTC
If Google’s problem is in their bundled apps, nothing stops the guy to release a new ROM without those apps. Advanced users will install them very easy if they need them. Unfortunately if Google doesn’t like the process of making a custom ROM itself, this might be a problem. I use a custom ROM on my Windows Mobile handset and I love it. If one day I have an Android based device, I would definitely use a custom one – they are IMHO always better.
Big vendors never care too much about the details, performance or anything in particular – they produce “good enough for everyone” image, which doesn’t fit the most advanced users. As somebody pointed out – those 2% are nothing.
…and Thom, I really like your style – I just imagined how my device “blows up in puffs of fairy dust”
Edit: I just saw the original article as well as the blog post. Google doesn’t want their apps inside. Modding is permitted. So – build a ROM without their “Google Experience” apps. Problem solved
Edited 2009-09-29 22:36 UTC
I find Google to be a bit of an enigma.
On the plus side, they do really good stuff with their “Summer of Code” program. They’ve also done some very good work with their Chrome/Chromium browser, and there are one or two other open apps they’ve done (that I can’t remember just now) which have also been good.
On the minus side, there is stuff like this “cease and desist”.
It’s as if they can’t quite make up their mind on the whole openness thing. If they were a cruise ship, they’d have their passengers spewing a bit with their sudden lurches like this.
– obsidian
I guess it’s quite simple, actually. I wouldn’t be having a problem with “sudden lurches” because I see none.
Basically what I see is: Hey, we’re Google. We are a company in the business of, guess what, making money. Your software and playing ball with your community allow us to build up a good image, so we play by your rules, based on copyright law, and work together.
Now, we released this code, some of it is based on the same rules as yours, some is based on our rules, both grounded on copyright law. Please be good citizens and abide by all the rules. Thank you.
Remember “Do no Evil” (whatever that may mean by Google, I don’t quite believe companies can actually not do any evil, they just hide their evil well) does not automatically mean “Do Good by everyone else’s multiple standards”.
I agree wholeheartedly with this summation of what Google is trying to do with this C&D letter. Comparing this to Apple’s habit of suing for damages every person that irritates them, well, its not nearly the same.
*nod* “Never Do Evil” =/= “Always Do Good“.
<geekComment>
There is that whole Neutral alignment still available *chuckle*
</geekComment>
There’s nothing enigmatic about Google. They’re a company. They act solely in their own self-interest. People tend to get confused when they see that, sometimes, Google’s interests align with the populist masses and, other times, they’re relentless corporate whores (like this). Consider this: Google is using a custom-distribution of Linux to power their datacenters. Now, of course, Google isn’t obligated by the GPL to contribute their changes to Linux back to the world, but shouldn’t they? They won’t, in any case, because it’s not in their interest to help their competitors. Which brings me back to my original point. As long as you can clearly see Google as a greedy corporation, there’s no confusion.
Thom’s writeup is pretty good. Herein, more information to add confusion to this mess.
It seems likely that what caused Google to attack with lawyers was CyanogenMod experimental builds including the unreleased new Market application (which app is nice, btw). C has been pulling features from experimental SVN branches for months, but the binary Market app (closed source!) was leaked/released by mistake/your story here.
ROM cooking and distribution has always been legally grey but Microsoft, HTC, Motorola and other major companies have rarely C&D a non-commercial distributor. The forum where most of the activity took place has lots of people redistributing ROMs with copyrighted pieces in them. Hardly ever has a manufacturer complained.
The opensource parts of android (the AOSP code) don’t make up a functioning phone ROM. Google engineers are working on some of the most egregious aspects of this.
There are devices in various countries on the market that run Android but are not Google Experience licensed. This is probably Google’s major concern about these apps along with them honouring agreements they have with other companies (HTC, map data providers, etc).
Market is not available except with Google Experience licensed devices, so the other apps “free beer” status as free downloads is not as important. Other software distribution methods work fine without the Market, but no one really want to have three, much less six or more such apps/markets.
That last bit is what confuses me the most. I can’t imagine Google actually wants to force a fork in the fledling Market space.
You cannot make money from open-source software/hardware.
Google/Apple will be non-existant if they stop making money. They have no other choice but to be evil closed source organization. This is their question of survival in this brutal/bad/evil capitalistic world.
I will always appreciate Microsoft for “surviving” so long in this brutal/bad/evil capitalistic world.