Google isn't going to rock the carriers' boat, but any significant kernel contributor could step up to the plate and fix the locked bootloader problem at any time.
Tivoization certainly violates the spirit of GPL2, as well as the letter. From GPL2:
> 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.
1. the signature is a derivative work of the GPLed work.
2. modification is the reason for distributing source code. source code without a signing key is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", as modifications cannot be made.
3. the signing key is an integral part of the "scripts used to control compilation and installation".
4. the signature is part of the "executable"; without it, the resulting object code is not executable.
IANAL, but I think every argument here would fail in court:
1. Probably not. While it's created from the original work, it does not contain the original work in any meaningful way. If it is, in any sense a derivative work, it probably qualifies as fair use.
2. Modifications to the Linux source code can be made without the key; they just can't be run on the device in question. Nothing in GPL2 says modified code has to run on the device the original code shipped with.
3. A Linux kernel compiled from the same sources can be installed on another device without the key.
4. The fact that a specific machine refuses to execute it without the key does not make the key part of the executable; other machines will execute it without the key.
1. Fair use of the signature doesn't apply. The license to distribute the compiled kernel is contingent upon anything derived from it being GPL as well (section 2b/3). Might be able to hack around this with a different entity doing the signing, but hopefully a court would see through that sham.
2. But modifications to the executable program itself (in flash) have to be facilitated. The preferred (HTC engineering) way of making these modifications is through the bootloader. There might be a loophole here in that the bootloader could be changed to allow flashing any kernel (but still not execute without a key), but being sold the device while it was on (with derivative works all over the place in RAM) would negate said loophole.
3. The specific script that has to be included is the one which generated and installed the resulting executable which was distributed to me on my specific device.
4. Good point, although the executable and signature are always distributed together and meant specifically for one particular machine, so it might not be as clearcut as you think
FWIW I've heard that Stallman has made similar arguments.
(I'm not a member of the lawyer guild either, so I'm not compelled to prefix my opinions with disclaimers)
They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook. Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.
What carrier is going to carry an Android phone without the proprietary "Google Experience" apps?
You don't get the app store or any of the better apps that people expect now (maps, youtube, contact/mail sync) without the Experience bundle. And Google controls that.
This doesn't seem to be the handset maker or even the carrier controlling the options. It's another software provider limiting potentially competing software...on an open platform. Seems they're using their competitive power in one domain to inhibit competition in another. What am I missing?
Anti-competitive doesn't just mean "not good for competitors." It's about things that are harmful for the marketplace. For example, it excludes the ordinary enjoyment of copyright exclusivity. You might think monopolies are harmful for marketplaces, but as a society we've decided that copyrights do more good than harm, so copyright exclusivity is not in itself anti-competitive. A more relevant example: trademarks are not generally anti-competitive.
Imagine Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to replace Bacardi rum with his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum (and nobody else's) as a condition for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name on rum-containing drinks? Would that be "anti-competitive?"
Well, on hand you have people complaining that Android is too open and allows carriers to load crapware and disable tethering. On the other hand, we have people complaining that Android is too closed because Motorola couldn't switch location providers. Which one is it?
I think it's the other other hand where people just like to complain. This reminds me of faux political controversy that gets created by cable news (replace Fox News with Daring Fireball).
Can you establish that these are the exact same people? It's only hypocrisy if you can establish that. Otherwise you've merely observed in a relatively hostile way that various people have various ideas about "freedom" and that's neither news nor terribly interesting on its own.
Unfortunately it seems to be both. Google could deny carriers licenses for Google apps/market if they choose to load crapware and/or disable tethering but so far they've used that power to go after Skyhook. Maybe they have entirely legitimate reasons for this? It's very difficult to walk the line between open and closed without running into some uncomfortable situations.
Android has always been sold as an open system + proprietary google apps. If you want access to the proprietary system (and presumably the Android trademark), you fall in line. Any company is free to make a phone without the proprietary google apps, but not selectively.
Yet for all this, Google still allows vendors to do things like lock the phone's search to Bing.
I'd guess it's something like, "Our testing has shown Skyhook performs worse than our internal service in real world use and we want Android customers to have the best."
I used to love Google, and will still love Google. But this action of theirs disappointed me. Google thinks that they are an "open" and esp android is very "open", i.e. it is free and open source. Manufacturers can modify the code and adapt to their hardware. Thats all well and good. But when Motorola modifies the code to add skyhook wireless for location, Google says take it off, or else.... This is really not good and does not match up with Google's ideals.
And note that skyhook wireless is a known firm for such a thing, in fact they had the first databases for wifi location search and iphones also used to use them
Google Android is just begging to get forked, and splintered. Manufacturers like Motorola and Samsung might have to bend to Google's will, but I doubt carriers will sit tightly while Google's fangs sink deeper into their industry.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "their industry," but the fact that carriers feel that their industry is anything other than delivering data is an annoyance that we all have to suffer (at least in the US). So let's hope Google can prevent full-blown carrier-specific forks of Android and keep trying to reduce them to the commodity providers they should be.
* Locked bootloaders
* Disabled or substituted major features (e.g. wifi tethering)
* Apps that can't be uninstalled
* Skins that can't be disabled
* Proprietary drivers
* SIM locking
I'm aware that Google does not yet have the clout to pull off most of the above yet, but maybe someday.