[Replicant] basic phone with 100% free software to use on Verizon?

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 01:59:03 GMT
falcon at ivan.Harhan.ORG (Mychaela Falconia) wrote:

> Someone claiming to be "Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli" <GNUtoo at no-log.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > There is a way to make it really free software, but "Mychaela
> > Falconia" systematically refuses to do it citing very unconvincing
> > excuses.  
> 
> [...] let me simply point out that putting quotes around people's
> names is not going to endear them to you. 
I don't think that it was your real name. Given our previous
conversation on other mailing lists, I assumed that this is a pseudonym
not to have to deal with legal consequences of modifying
and redistributing non-free software without the permission of its
copyright holders.
I uses quotes in mine too: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli, the quotes indicate
that GNUtoo is a nickname/pseudonym. However Denis Carikli is my real
name. I find it very convenient.

> As for me "systematically refusing" to work with OsmocomBB, that is
> their fault, not mine.  They had a chance to draw me into their
> project, but they blew it.  If you want to draw people into your
> project, you need to start by giving them access to the same starting-
> point materials which you are sitting on yourself.  As you should
> remember full well, that is the one thing they systematically refused
> to do.  Telling someone "I will never let you have a copy of the
> source I'm sitting on, but why don't you go contribute to that feeble
> reimplementation attempt over there" is NOT the way to endear someone
> to you or to your project.
That "source" refers to the non-free calypso source code that OpenMoko
might have access to. It's unlikely that they got the full source code.
This has nothing to do with OsmocomBB itself.

> The people in the inner circle of Openmoko/OsmocomBB (no need for
> names, you know full well who they are) had a chance to bring me in as
> a developer.  If they had willingly granted me access to the "dirty"
> source they were sitting on and *then* started persuading me to work
> on OsmocomBB instead of TI-based firmwares, I would have listened to
> them, and they would have had a fair chance of convincing me.  But
> they weren't willing to do that, hence by their own choices they have
> permanently driven away a most talented potential contributor to their
> project.  Now they (and you) have to reap what they (and you) have
> sown.
I was able to contribute to Nuttx, without ever looking at this TI
source code.

I have no contributions in osmocomBB yet as the project is pretty
complete, and the only lacking parts that I could contribute to don't
require access to that source code.

There even was some leaked source code for some calypso modems/phones
before, but you wanted what OpenMoko had, whatever that might be.

> Two years later, I did obtain a copy of that same source they wouldn't
> share with me willingly - I wouldn't be alive today if I hadn't.  But
> the social damage was already done by then, and this damage is
> irreparable.
I don't get the point. You don't want to target the OpenMoko phones,
and still want whatever OpenMoko had. There was already some leaked
source code before.

However I've no idea what the difference is, I never looked at it.
As I said, I didn't need to. I really avoid being tainted.
Whether "being tainted" is FUD or not, I can practically speaking send
patches without "tainting" the projects I participate to.
Some very big projects(Linux) have drastic legal requirements, so
without good legal practice they won't be able to merge your code.

> I will never, ever, ever contribute to OsmocomBB, not
> because of some "unconvincing excuses", but because of the way they
> treated me when it mattered the most.  You can't just rape a woman and
> then expect her to forgive it all and join your project as an eager
> contributor - it doesn't work that way.  As I said, you now have to
> reap what you have sown.
You don't need to, I do not have any patch in osmocomBB. However I
worked on adding support for osmocomBB phones to Nuttx.
To do that you need to write code from scratch based on the available
datasheets, like I did for the LCD screen of the C155, or to adapt
osmocomBB code to Nuttx.
Note that there are some licensing issues to take care of since Nuttx
is licensed under a permissive license, while osmocomBB is copyleft.
Most developers are OK with that relicensing as long as it's not
related to any GSM functionalities. That instead can be merged in
Nuttx, as an application, keeping osmocomBB license.


> Because OsmocomBB is not an option for me (that bridge is burned to
> ashes - by them, not by me - and can never be rebuilt), if I want a
> libre phone in my purse, I have to lead my own project entirely
> independent of them.  At this point my choices are:
> 
> 1. Develop it completely from scratch entirely on my own, *without*
>    using any code from OsmocomBB, or at least without cooperating with
>    OsmocomBB in any way;
I pointed you how to do it. Pick some datasheets and start making
patches for Nuttx.

[Refering to osmocomBB]
> Thank you for acknowledging that it is absolutely not practical to use
> at all.  But the remaining question is: just what are you going to
> accomplish by telling people not to use FreeCalypso (which is very
> close to practically usable on the C139) and directing them to use a
> piece of software, however wondrous and holy and free, that IS NOT
> "practical at all to use at all"?
I'm not, I'm just looking forward to get some developers contribute to
a free and usable alternative.

> > -> Or you have an Openmoko phone, and you cannot put the main CPU
> > into suspend, because part of the GSM stack runs on it. So you get
> > a very poor battery life.  
> 
> And just how would an average Joe or Jane go about obtaining an
> Openmoko phone, given that some mogul has bought up all remaining
> surplus for some "vertical market" application, leaving none for Joe
> and Jane, while every last remaining unit is being gutted and
> Qualcommized?  You are not seriously expecting to be able to run
> OsmocomBB on Dr. GTA04's Qualcomm modem, are you?
Are your project addressing that? On the GTA04 you have the QMI
protocol, look if you can use the peek and poke commands.
However even with such commands working to read/write the modem's RAM,
there is a ton of work to do.

I'd rather have more solid foundations that work on older phones first.

> While we are having this debate, users of basic non-smart phones are
> suffering from flawed UI designs which we can't improve and other bugs
> we can't fix (some of which might be bugs in the spying sense) because
> we are forced to use devices that run firmware for which we have no
> source whatsoever, not even partial source - forced to use them
> because *as of today*, these non-user-improvable phones are all that
> exists in terms of a practically usable non-smart phone.  I am one of
> these suffering users (but not the only one: I know several others
> who see the situation the same way I do), and I have resolved to
> relieve the suffering of my people by replacing
> improvement-resistant, sans-source firmware in our phones with one
> which we *are* empowered to debug, troubleshoot, improve and maintain
> through the availability of full source, regardless of your
> high-horse arguments about silly legalese. I have committed myself to
> this path, and nothing that you say or do will stop me.
I responded to that at the end.

> > OsmocomBB supports several phones.  
> 
> FreeCalypso supports (or can easily be made to support) everything
> that OsmocomBB supports.
> 
> > On some flashing the bootloader is more risky than on other.  
> 
> The way I've implemented flashing in FreeCalypso loadtools (my own
> implementation, as I never got any source for TI's FLUID flashing
> tool) reduces the bricking vulnerability window to almost none, at
> least if the operator uses the tools correctly - they are about as
> forgiving as rm -rf / as root. :)  OTOH, OsmocomBB's flashing
> implementation is a recipe for making bricks out of phones.
Well, it depends on the phone. Some have a romloader. For the phones
that don't, it's indeed problematic. I don't see how software tools
could fix that.

> Paul Kocialkowski <contact at paulk.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Well, I guess "not approved" is a bit far fetched here.
> > International versions are still approved by all regulatory
> > standards required for sale and use with public mobile telephony
> > networks in the US.  
> 
> I don't give a damn about regulatory approval.  They are not
> *socially* approved, which is what matters.
You don't need to, as I understand it, in Germany, selling phones
without approved modems is not permitted by the law.
WiFi devices are affected by similar regulations around the world, they
are however less costly as I understand it.
I am not aware of any law requiring the user that modifies its phone,
and not sell it, to require approval from the regulatory standards.

That doesn't mean that the user is free to do anything she wish, she
still have to abide the regulations(not disrupt networks, abide power
regulations, etc...).

> > Please stop saying that your modem firmware is free software.  
> 
> No, I will not stop.
> 
> > It is not, by the very definition of free software.  
> 
> By *your* definition of free sw.  But you are not the exclusive owner
> of the English language with an exclusive franchise on defining the
> meaning of terms.  You and RMS/FSF have chosen to define "free sw" in
> a very hypocritical way, and I reject your definition.  I shall
> continue using my own definition instead.

Free software:
--------------
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom
> 0).
Assuming a user gets a copy of your FreeCalypso program, and that has
the full source code, and has no blobs, practically speaking this user
can run the program as she wish, it's however against the copyright
laws of most/all countries.

> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
> does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the
> source code is a precondition for this.
Same than above.

> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
> neighbor (freedom 2).
What is the freedom to redistribute copies if that redistribution is
illegal and can be prevented by the law? Doesn't it, in practice deter
people from doing it?

> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to
> others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole
> community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the
> source code is a precondition for this.
Here there is a strong deterrent again: the law. By redistributing a
modified version, the author of the modification puts herself at
greater risk.

Practically speaking, assuming that this projects doesn't require the
use of software without source code that you can build yourself, and
has no binary blobs, while it permits individual users to control their
copy of the software, there is a huge deterrent regarding collective
control of this software.

If we compare it with politics, do you consider that a country has
freedom of speech if it harshly persecute/prosecute people using that
basic human right?

I'd say that your project has (full?) source code but is not free
software. I'd instead call that "Leaked Source".
"Leaked Source" is a perfect description for it and makes what it is
crystal clear.

Denis.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/replicant/attachments/20151214/025eb725/attachment.asc>