Add md/article/android.md.

1 files changed, 192 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/md/article/android.md b/md/article/android.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..949327e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/md/article/android.md
@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+<!-- pubdate: 20110919 -->
+<!-- author: Richard Stallman -->
+
+# Android and Users' Freedom
+
+First published in [The Guardian][artcl].
+
+[artcl]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman
+
+To what extent does Android respect the freedom of its users? For a
+computer user that values freedom, that is the most important question
+to ask about any software system.
+
+In the [free/libre software movement][0], we develop software that
+respects users' freedom, so we and you can escape from software that
+doesn't. By contrast, the idea of "open source" focuses on how to
+develop code; it is a different current of thought whose principal
+value is [code quality rather than freedom][1].Thus, the concern here
+is not whether Android is "open", but whether it allows users to be
+free.
+
+[0]: https://fsf.org
+[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
+
+
+Android is an operating system primarily for mobile phones, which
+consists of Linux (Torvalds's kernel), some libraries, a Java platform
+and some applications. Linux aside, the software of Android versions 1
+and 2 was mostly developed by Google; Google released it under the
+Apache 2.0 license, which is a lax free software license without
+[copyleft][cl].
+
+[cl]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.html
+
+The version of Linux included in Android is not entirely free
+software, since it contains non-free "binary blobs" (just like
+Torvalds' version of Linux), some of which are really used in some
+Android devices. Android platforms use other non-free firmware, too,
+and non-free libraries. Aside from those, the source code of Android
+versions 1 and 2, as released by Google, is free software – but this
+code is insufficient to run the device. Some of the applications that
+generally come with Android are non-free, too.
+
+Android is very different from the [GNU/Linux operating
+system][gnu-project] because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed,
+just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux
+is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think "Linux" refers to
+the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and
+make paradoxical statements such as "Android contains Linux, but it
+isn't Linux". If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation
+is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and
+GNU/Linux are mostly different.
+
+[gnu-project]: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html
+
+(Within Android, Linux the kernel remains a separate program, with its
+source code under [GNU GPL version 2][gpl-2]. To combine Linux with
+code under the Apache 2.0 license would be copyright infringement,
+since GPL version 2 and Apache 2.0 are
+[incompatible][gpl-apache-incompat]. Rumours that Google has somehow
+converted Linux to the Apache license are erroneous; Google has no
+power to change the licence on the code of Linux, and did not try. If
+the authors of Linux allowed its use under GPL version 3, then that
+code could be combined with Apache-licensed code, and the combination
+could be released under GPL version 3. But Linux has not been released
+that way.)
+
+[gpl-2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
+[gpl-apache-incompat]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
+
+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.
+
+Google said it withheld the 3.0 source code because it was buggy, and
+that people should wait for the next release. That may be good advice
+for people who simply want to run the Android system, but the users
+should be the ones to decide this. Anyway, developers and tinkerers
+who want to include some of the changes in their own versions could
+use that code just fine.
+
+The non-release of two versions' source code raises concern that
+Google might intend to turn Android proprietary permanently; that the
+release of some Android versions as free software may have been a
+temporary ploy to get community assistance in improving a proprietary
+software product. Let us hope does not happen.
+
+In any case, most of the source code of some versions of Android has
+been released as free software. Does that mean that products using
+those Android versions respect users' freedom? No, for several
+reasons.  First of all, most of them contain non-free Google
+applications for talking to services such as YouTube and Google
+Maps. These are officially not part of Android, but that doesn't make
+the product OK. There are also non-free libraries; whether they are
+part of Android is a moot point. What matters is that various
+functionalities need them.
+
+Even the executables that are officially part of Android may not
+correspond to the source code Google releases. Manufacturers may
+change this code, and often they don't release the source code for
+their versions. The GNU GPL requires them to distribute the code for
+their versions of Linux, if they comply. The rest of the code, under
+the lax Apache license, does not require them to release the source
+version that they really use. Replicant, a free version of Android
+that supports just a few phone models, has replaced many of these
+libraries, and you can do without the non-free apps. But there are
+other problems.
+
+Some device models are designed to stop users from installing and
+using modified software. In that situation, the executables are not
+free even if they were made from sources that are free and available
+to you. However, some Android devices can be "rooted" so users can
+install different software.
+
+Important firmware or drivers are generally proprietary also. These
+handle the phone network radio, Wi-Fi, bluetooth, GPS, 3D graphics,
+the camera, the speaker, and in some cases the microphone too. On some
+models, a few of these drivers are free, and there are some that you
+can do without – but you can't do without the microphone or the phone
+network radio.
+
+The phone network firmware comes pre-installed. If all it did was sit
+there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we
+insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can
+overlook pre-installed firmware that will never be upgraded, because
+it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a
+circuit.
+
+Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious
+features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented.
+
+On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it
+could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls
+the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main
+computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace
+whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is
+possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the
+phone's computer, through the phone radio network.
+
+The point of free software is that we have control of our computing,
+and this doesn't qualify. While any computing system might have bugs,
+these devices might be bugs. (Craig Murray, in Murder in Samarkand,
+relates his involvement in an intelligence operation that remotely
+converted an unsuspecting target's non-Android portable phone into a
+listening device.)
+
+In any case, the phone network firmware in an Android device is not
+equivalent to a circuit, because the hardware allows installation of
+new versions and this is actually done. Since it is proprietary
+firmware, in practice only the manufacturer can make new versions –
+users can't.
+
+Putting these points together, we can tolerate non-free phone network
+firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take
+control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as
+the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. In other
+words, it has to be equivalent to circuitry, and that circuitry must
+not be malicious. There is no obstacle to building an Android phone
+which has these characteristics, but we don't know of any.
+
+Recent press coverage of Android has focused on the patent
+wars. During 20 years of campaigning for the abolition of software
+patents, we have warned such wars could happen. Software patents could
+force elimination of features from Android, or even make it
+unavailable. (See [endsoftpatents.org][eop] for more information about
+why software patents must be abolished.)
+
+[eop]: https://endsoftpatents.org
+
+However, the patent attacks, and Google's responses, are not directly
+relevant to the topic of this article: how Android products approach
+an ethically system of distribution and how they fall short. This
+issue merits the attention of the press too.
+
+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][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.
+
+[replicant]: https://replicant.us
+
+Copyright 2011 Richard Stallman. Released under the [Creative Commons
+Attribution Noderivs 3.0 licence][cc].
+
+[cc]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0