FSF High Priority Projects

Aury88

From 2005 the Free Software Foundation (FSF) launched the High Priority Projects (HPP) initiative to draws attention (and attract funders and developers) to a relatively small number of projects of great strategic importance to the goal of freedom for all computer users.
This year one of the HHP point is dedicated to the Free phone operating system.
Actually the only project sponsored is Replicant a fully free Android distribution.
But why our loved UT is not listed?
Onestly our operative system, especially on free hardware like pinephones, could adhere very well to the characteristics considered by FSF:

Systematic. Something that has the potential to improve lots of free software programs, development, communities, advocacy -- making use of free software and participation in development and advocacy more compelling for many more people.
Universal. Something that nearly every computer user needs, but for which there is no competitive free software in the category.
Cascading. Something that will enable a large number of users to replace not only comparable proprietary software, but also break a logjam that makes it hard for users to adopt unrelated free software.
Frontier. Enables users to be free at ever lower layers of software and down to hardware. Few users may be able to do this soon, but such frontier development ensures that the bar for eventual freedom for all users is not set too low.

In my opinion we should consider proposing UT /Ubports as a project.

It is useless to remember that giving the project greater visibility at the FSF means directly accessing a multitude of developers engaged in the free world from years and with knowledge and experience ranging from app development to kernel development

libremax

@aury88 The relationship between Canonical and FSF has been complicated for a long time on issues of Ubuntu's compliance with the GNU licenses.
And UT inherits these difficulties...

PureOS used on Librem5 has far more chance to be endorsed by FSF.

Aury88

@libremax seems to me canonical has complied with the FSF terms years ago as said in the first paragraph. ubports is going to be also more and more independent from the canonical policies and trademarks;
this is not really a situation like us against PureOS so give to UT and endorsement from FSF don't prevent a FSF endorsement also to PureOS or viceversa.
Last but not the least your statement seems to contradict what ubports stated about ut: "Ubuntu Touch is 100% community driven and independent." so why UT should have a complicated relationship with FSF because of a past ( more than 5 years ago) complicated relationship between Canonical and FSF?

Have ubuports already tried to apply ? is it a your guess/fear or does already UT been refused by FSF?

libremax

@aury88 As long as the name Ubuntu (and others components) are used, UBports is depending of Canonical, its trademarks and its intellectual property rights.

And that's those Canonical trademarks and intellectual property rights which are not fully compliant with FSF's requirements.

Flohack

As long was we are consuming binary packages from Canonical and call it Ubuntu I don´t think FSF will accept us. But you can try. Nothing has been applied for, since nobody knew about this - and we are all totally overworked atm, so you can ask them whats the deal and if we would fit...

Fla

@aury88 said in FSF High Priority Projects:

Last but not the least your statement seems to contradict what ubports stated about ut: "Ubuntu Touch is 100% community driven and independent." so why UT should have a complicated relationship with FSF because of a past ( more than 5 years ago) complicated relationship between Canonical and FSF?

Because Ubuntu Touch is based on Ubuntu packages. 16.04 at the moment, 20.04 in the future. Ubuntu isn't considered "Free as in freedom" by the FSF (remember that even debian isn't. Trisquel is one of the very few distribution which is) so Ubuntu Touch won't be certified.

That doesn't block us to submit a candidature, just to see. In fact I'm not sure if the projects listed in HPP has to be FSF certified, so you can try

kugiigi

@fla Well the fact that they are currently supporting an Android OS variant then I would think any other mobile OS would be qualified for them. I guess someone just needs to nominate or something UT

libremax

@kugiigi said in FSF High Priority Projects:

@fla Well the fact that they are currently supporting an Android OS variant then I would think any other mobile OS would be qualified for them.

Replicant is based on AOSP (Android Open Source Project) not Android. Using the term Android for AOSP is wrong and only bring confusion.

And AOSP seems to be more compliant with FSF requirements than Ubuntu....

kugiigi

@libremax Sorry but I don't get what you mean. Android is literally in what AOSP means and it runs Android apps so I don't see why it's wrong to call it Android. Anyway, not here to argue about that

libremax

@kugiigi Android is a name protected by a trademark of Google and this trademark at purpose doesn't include AOSP.
That's one of the reasons why an AOSP based OS like replicant can be compliant with FSF requirements.
AOSP is opensource and is not under a Google trademark.
Android is not opensource and is under a Google trademark.

dobey

@libremax AOSP is literally Android Open Source Project so yes, it is Android. It is the open source parts of Android. It is not Google Android (which contains the Google Services Framework and such), but it is still Android. If you build only AOSP and throw it on a device, that device is still running Android. Also Replicant calls itself a distribution of Android, directly on the web site.

But there's no point in being pedantic about it here. Android, the logo and typeface, and robot are trademarked by Google with similar restrictions as the Ubuntu and Firefox trademarks have. See https://source.android.com/setup/start/brands

Pulsar33

Please for my information, historically, did Google build Android over the previously existing AOSP or did some group extract AOSP from the previously existing Android of Google ?
Thanks in advance.
Pulsar33

libremax

@dobey said in FSF High Priority Projects:

@libremax AOSP is literally Android Open Source Project so yes, it is Android. It is the open source parts of Android. It is not Google Android (which contains the Google Services Framework and such), but it is still Android. If you build only AOSP and throw it on a device, that device is still running Android. Also Replicant calls itself a distribution of Android, directly on the web site.

You name "Google Android" (which doesn't legally exist and is not a trademarked by Google) which is called Android by Google and is trademark.
So no AOSP (Android Open Source Project) is not Android (trademark protected)
The list of Google Trademark is here https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/
and you will not find "Google Android" in that list.

dobey

@libremax said in FSF High Priority Projects:

So no AOSP (Android Open Source Project) is not Android (trademark protected)

Fine, it's not called Google Android but rather Android by Google in their marketing. But that does not mean that AOSP is not Android. It means Google owns the Android trademark. Google themselves call AOSP Android all over the web site. Again, look at the branding guidelines for AOSP which I linked. AOSP is Android. It just happens to only be the open source part.

But this thread isn't about that. Replicant is an Android distribution. Halium is an Android distribution. Ubuntu Touch is an OS based on the Ubuntu distribution of Linux, and which may on some devices also include the Halium distribution of Android.

dobey

@pulsar33 Both, really. AOSP gets updated after Google builds the new version and dumps the open source parts into the repo.

libremax

@dobey

"The Android name, the Android logo, the Google Play brand, and other Google trademarks are the property of Google LLC and are not part of the assets available through the Android Open Source Project.".

Android Open Source Project is not under a Google trademark. Replicant is based on AOSP and is free from Google Trademark (and to be based on AOSP does'nt give by default access to Replicant to the name Android nor to the Android logo) .

Ubuntu is under a Canonical trademark.

It's why the situations are different and may have an impact for FSF.
And it's why it's not being "pedantic" to point out the difference beetween AOSP (Android Open Source Project) and Android.

Fla

Please stop getting out of topic
The question here is, does someone want to do the work of submitting UT to the HPP list?

libremax

@fla Sorry, but what is "in topic" is defined by the first post of this thread from @Aury88.

And he asked the questions:
"Actually the only project sponsored is Replicant a fully free Android distribution.
But why our loved UT is not listed?"

So it's in topic to answer that Replicant, as based on AOSP is free of Android trademark belonging to Google and that Replicant is also free of proprietary component because Replicant "replaces or avoids every proprietary component of the system, such as user-space programs and libraries as well as firmwares."

In comparison Ubuntu Touch is not free of trademark and is not free of proprietary component (as non free firmware for example).

Trademark and non free firmware are criteria (among others listed in Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)) used by FSF to determine if a distribution is compliant with its requirements.

The second point in topic is about the opportunity to "propose UT /Ubports as a project to FSF".

Because UT, based on my analysis, is not currently compliant GNU FSDG, it seems to me that the chances of success are nil.

Flohack

@libremax said in FSF High Priority Projects:

pic to answer that Replicant, as based on AOSP is free of Android trademark belonging to Google and that Replicant is also free of proprietary component because Replicant "replaces or avoids every proprietary component of the system, such as user-space programs and libraries as well as firmwares."

How can Replicant be free of proprietary firmware? Its an essential prt of every Android.compatible phone. Without it you would not be able to make calls, use Bluetooth or WiFi and see nothing on the screen. Let alone the camera...

libremax

@flohack said in FSF High Priority Projects:

@libremax said in FSF High Priority Projects:

pic to answer that Replicant, as based on AOSP is free of Android trademark belonging to Google and that Replicant is also free of proprietary component because Replicant "replaces or avoids every proprietary component of the system, such as user-space programs and libraries as well as firmwares."

How can Replicant be free of proprietary firmware? Its an essential prt of every Android.compatible phone. Without it you would not be able to make calls, use Bluetooth or WiFi and see nothing on the screen. Let alone the camera...

Answers are in Replicant FAQ.
In brief, Replicant as a distribution does not include non-free components.
When used non free components "are run aside" Replicant.
To be compliant with FSF requirements for an OS distribution does not involve to be usable from its own in real life.

It would be possible to make a stripped down Ubuntu Touch distribution without non-free components.
Would remain at the very least the subject of trademark to examine.