Mobile phone markets are designed to split our community

Apple’s iPhone biggest innovation is its mobile app store: for the first time it allowed installing software on the mobile device with the convenience of any modern GNU/Linux distribution. Like in Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, installing software is just a matter of browsing a repository and click on a button. It’s such a good idea that now every mobile phone manufacturer has created its own mobile app store version. Nokia has Ovi Store, RIM/BlackBerry has App World, Android has its Market. I’m sure that more will come, also from the network operators.

Differently from GNU/Linux software repositories, though, these markets only allow non-free software. The manufacturers together with the network operators act as strict gatekeepers, allowing to reach the users only binaries signed with developers keys. Even if there are many free/libre software projects distributed on the mobile stores (Funambol, WordPress, and many other), the users cannot practically enjoy the freedom to modify the software autonomously because of tivoization.  So we have in our hands powerful computers, always connected to the network but its users are deprived of one significant freedom. The worst effect of these mobile stores is that they split our community, forcing free developers to choose between distributing their software while compromising their morality or not distribute at all.

Given the sad news about OpenMoko ceasing development of the new phone, it’s necessary to gather up and think of alternatives. Jailbreak and Cydia on iPhone is a start, and other phones will need similar liberation. But these are just short-term palliatives. In the long run, I hope we’ll have more OpenMoko-like devices, with full freedom attached.

Is GPLv3 doomed on mobile handsets?

Short answer: no, I don’t think so. But it will take lots of efforts for GPLv3 software to diffuse on handsets, too.

Longer answer. For us at Funambol it’s quite clear that not all of the Funambol clients can be distributed as binaries under the same AGPLv3 license that regulates the source. That’s because for platforms like BlackBerry and iPhone the binaries must be digitally signed with a developer key in order to be executed and run.’  GNU GPLv3 and its sister license Affero GPLv3 require that the recipient of binaries receive from the author the complete and corresponding source code:

Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications.

That is, Funambol cannot distribute the BlackBerry or iPhone binaries under the AGPLv3 without distributing also its own private dev keys, something that clearly cannot be done.

Now many people believe that since handset manufacturers and cell phone network operators are used to keep strong control over their hardware platforms and over their networks, then GPLv3 software will never be able to diffuse in the mobile environment.’  This criticism is not new and has also been discussed during the GPLv3 drafting process.’  But GPLv3 is not necessarily incompatible with embedded devices and with business models attached to them.

Most of the criticisms are either plain FUD or old habits (“that’s how it always was and will always be”). For example, one argument is that regulators like FCC mandate that devices that emit radio signals should not be modifiable; therefore hardware vendors refuse to release software for wireless systems under a free software license.’  Another is that network operators don’t like to give possibility to execute any software on their networks for fears of malware and lawsuits from their users (example: if a program gets out of control and starts sending thousands of sms from a cell phone, who’s going to pay?)

Criticisms like these may be hard to confute, but they must be fought back because we can’t let people believe that things can and should not change.’  We need a more focused effort.’  OpenMoko demonstrates that most of the concerns come from laziness, old habits. FSF can have a stronger role even if RMS doesn’t use a cell phone.

When you renew your support to FSF this year add a request for the High Priority Project: a fully free OS for cell phones. We have the OpenMoko hardware to start hacking, we have lots of software to get started. Lets make it better and put the Freedom word in mobile, too.

Openmoko forced to fight a patent troll

Instead of innovating the mobile business, OpenMoko is now forced to divert energy on a battle against an Italian patent troll. From a message to the OpenMoko mailing lists:

The short story is that we are in a protracted battle with some patent trolls. Google for Sisvel. In order to get ourselves in a stronger position, we want to make sure no copies/instances/whatever of patent-infested technologies like MP2 and MP3 exist on our servers. Our phones never shipped with end-user MP3 playback features, but we want to use this opportunity to make sure it’s not even in some remote place somewhere.

The Neo Freerunner never shipped with software support for MP2 and MP3, so I wonder what the infringment claim is. I couldn’t find many info online about the case. Does anybody know more about it?

Re: RESEND(Wrong Thread): IMAGE/MP3 licensing issue. [].