Root Jailbreaking Exemption Law Could Expire Soon

[Pappy62]

"zionist" does not mean "jew". a zionist is someone (OF ANY RACE) that promotes the ideas and ideologies of zionism. to hint to the idea that "zionist = jew" is a racist thing in and of itself but lets not go there...

How the hell was race implied in my comment???
Jeeze bro - calm down.... look up "zionism" before you react and get upset... there was no racist intent intentionally implied - by anyone here, that I could see - period.
Myself included, for certain.
I just wanted to make sure that he understood how his statement could be offensive to some - that's all. It didn't offend me, but I've seen other comments like that go south... badly.
No "Brow beat-down" or insult intended.

IMHO, this discussion should be contained to freedom of the Internet, the items we purchase, and our rights thereto - not religion... which frankly, some could have misinterpreted the comment he made in that way - that was all I was say'n.
Sometimes we have to watch what we say online, be civil and considerate of others.
But in the end, that's what Forum Moderators are for... Moderators, if I have stepped out of line, I'll humbly go away and never post again.
I don't have anger management issues. LOL

 

[redhook]

I don't want to get into this argument but here's my OPINION

Google created this os called android

No they didn't, they acquired it when they bought a company called Android Inc.

Google is the sole owner of android Google them self's have stated multiple times in the past they are exempt to the rules and regulation of the DMCA when it comes to the locking down of android and for this reason the DMCA can not enforce there rules upon android users.

They do not own all of Android, many part of it are derived from Linux. They also haven't stated what you say they did, and even if they did nobody can declare themselves immune from the law. If it worked that way you could declare yourself immune from all laws.

Android os is a software created with the purpose of allowing end users the ability to root, modify, and create new software to go along with android platform In a sense this allows android to grow and becomes smarter.

No it wasn't. Android was bought by Google (btw the main branch of Android is not under an open source license, only the AOSP project is open-source) and marketed to handset manufactures as a way for Google to make money, they data mine all devices for use in marketing. Only some parts of it are open, and this is why they were able to withhold the source for honeycomb.

Android is a os created to allow the american population to build upon it's platform and make it better

See above.

Google has stated for this reason they know that open sourcing is the right choice and this is why they provide all the src codes to us end users, so we can root we can modify and we can create.

Wrong again, can you even cite this?

Google has stated that the DMCA does not have the authority to tell them to lock down a software that was not created or intended to be locked down.

now this does not mean Google wont abide by copyright laws because they will all this means is they will not allow the lockdown of the android os unless they want to lock it down by choice of there own Not the DMCA.

You have no grasp on what the DMCA is or what it says. There are many parts of Android that fall under the DMCA. Even fully open-sourced encryption software falls under it. Just because an access restriction scheme falls under an open source license does not mean you are free to circumvent it. There are also many things added to Android by manufactures that are closed. In fact the only thing they have to release is source code for the Linux kernel used, and they are not required to release source for proprietary kernel modules. This is why many devices that have had ICS ported to them do not have a working camera or hardware acceleration (i.e. HP TouchPad).

once again this is my OPINION on this.

Yet you try to state it as fact.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246140/is_android_open_not_so_much_study_finds.html

Android is a heck of a lot more open than Apple's iOS, to be sure, but it's not as open as many open source advocates would like. Now there's some comparative data to back that up. In a new study (PDF) published Monday by research firm Vision Mobile, in fact, Android was named the most “closed” of eight different open source projects.

 

[kanaida]

I think android itself, being built from Linux which is part open source kernel, and part GNU fee software running on it, using the GNU license that forces you to give other people the same rights that were given to you makes things perfectly legitimate. We only 'root' devices, so that we can put our own version of android software which falls under the same type of license. It's the freedom to modify as we wish so long as we give others our source.

I think it's a (possibly GNU licence) violation to us users, not to be allowed to be able to flash our phones without rooting, or finding some way to bypass protection, when phone carriers are forced to give us the source code under their licensing terms. So they give you the blueprints to a house, but they put an electric fence inside all the walls so you can't modify it. That's ridiculous.

 

[redhook]

I think android itself, being built from Linux which is part open source kernel, and part GNU fee software running on it, using the GNU license that forces you to give other people the same rights that were given to you makes things perfectly legitimate. We only 'root' devices, so that we can put our own version of android software which falls under the same type of license. It's the freedom to modify as we wish so long as we give others our source.

I think it's a (possibly GNU licence) violation to us users, not to be allowed to be able to flash our phones without rooting, or finding some way to bypass protection, when phone carriers are forced to give us the source code under their licensing terms. So they give you the blueprints to a house, but they put an electric fence inside all the walls so you can't modify it. That's ridiculous.

The only part of Android that falls under the GNU license is the Linux kernel that it uses. The rest of the system falls under either the Apache license which does not require the release of source code or is proprietary (i.e. OEM launchers, Google Apps). In fact some of the kernel modules used by various devices are closed source. The notion that Android is 100% open source is incorrect.

And there is no GNU violation involved with locking down phones. The GNU license only requires that you distribute source code for any GNU project that you modify and distribute. This does not mean you have to release the full source code for your project, only for the parts that were already covered by the GNU license. This is why handset manufactures are only required to release the source code for the Linux kernel used in their Android devices.