RMS: 'Is Android Really Free Software?'

An anonymous reader points out an article by Richard Stallman in The Guardian which questions whether Android should be described as 'free' or 'open.' Quoting: "Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public License for Linux, but the Apache license on the rest of Android does not require source release. Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple. ... Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Hackers are working on Replicant, but it's a big job to support a new phone model, and there remains the problem of the firmware. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom."

Don't forget Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

They also release some iOS 4 source parts [apple.com]. Is Android really more open/free?

Re:Yawn.

[bonch]

Each tenet of his philosophy?! How can something be open or free at all if the source code isn't even available? That's the fundamental basis of the whole idea.

Re:Marketing

[Karlt1]

Erm. Have you seen Android's market share lately?

But that hasn't equated with success in their respective app stores. The Apple app market made over 17X the revenue of the Android app store last year.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/ [techcrunch.com]

Re:Marketing

[pointybits]

No, 65% of Android Market apps are free or ad supported, where only 36% of Apple app store apps are free or ad supported (source Distimo report April 2011). In absolute numbers there are more free apps on the Android Market than there are in the Apple app store.