FSF High Priority Projects

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.

flohack

@libremax well "run aside" is a bit vague. Purism has always pointed out that they will isolate the modem and such to not run proprietary code through the OS. But, as you need to load firmware, thats not gonna work for the existing hardware. So, how can Replicant load firmware in an FSF-compliant way?

To mee that is all very political, not a technical discussion, and what is considered FREE and what not is sometimes a matter of personal taste more than strict rules. As I am not a political animal at all, I stay clear of such discussions, but just saying, it seems Replicant sells their cause very well, letting people believe that they do not even toch non-free blobs, which is technically impossible: In order to load the firmware, it must pass the OS main processor and kernel, and as such its already "tainted".

Or I am wrong? I dont know. As already pointed out, we have Ubuntu in our name, which is a registered trademark and therefore probably not applicable for that list of projects.

libremax

@flohack said in FSF High Priority Projects:

@libremax well "run aside" is a bit vague. Purism has always pointed out that they will isolate the modem and such to not run proprietary code through the OS. But, as you need to load firmware, thats not gonna work for the existing hardware. So, how can Replicant load firmware in an FSF-compliant way?

You can have a look to what is explained for a "supported device" like Galaxy S2.

Proprietary firmwares which have to be loaded to the circuit by the main processor are not loaded because they are not distributed along with Replicant. So the device does not get the functionality and that's it.

To mee that is all very political, not a technical discussion, and what is considered FREE and what not is sometimes a matter of personal taste more than strict rules. As I am not a political animal at all, I stay clear of such discussions, but just saying, it seems Replicant sells their cause very well, letting people believe that they do not even toch non-free blobs, which is technically impossible: In order to load the firmware, it must pass the OS main processor and kernel, and as such its already "tainted".

Or I am wrong? I dont know.

Replicant make the choice as a distribution to not distribute non-free components.
Given that choice Replicant is unsuable for probably more than 99,99% of humans.
They are very clear it's not sufficient to resolve all freedom and privacy/security issues in the real world.

And it's great Replicant exists.

flohack

@libremax ok so its basically PostarmetOS approach where your phone would be more like a wireless tablet/computer

libremax

@flohack Well, they differ on many major points, Replicant is focusing on being a free-only mobile distribution and PmOS is focusing on using mainline Linux Kernel but the result for average joe is rather similar.

kugiigi

@libremax Yeah, sounds like PostmarketOS. I didn't know Replicant is similar to that. Anyway, this means all distros for the pinephone and librem 5 are kind of qualified even UT because it doesn't use android blobs there.

Also, to me AOSP is still Android

Fla

Well, I think the best way to know is to candidate, or to ask someone from the FSF to come here and tell us.

libremax

The doctrine of the FSF has been well established and consistent for 35 years. I don't see why it would suddenly change (and I hope it will not).

libremax

@kugiigi

Also, to me AOSP is still Android

There is not much risk that Google will sue you for not respecting his trademark by wrongly attributing the protected name of his proprietary operating system to a free operating system, knowing that he is the creator and sole responsible for this mess, which Google probably did on purpose and would not have billions dollars to get from a trial :-).

AppLee

@libremax said in FSF High Priority Projects:

I don't see why it would suddenly change

That doesn't forbid to try and apply.
At worse it won't be accepted.