[Digitonsam]

Guys anyone got an opinion about the htc legend, I am tempted to try android and trade of my BB.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by abhibh

Samsung lacks FM and losses out on 3G (3.6Mbps). Tattoo has Class 10 EDGE compared to Class 12 of Samsung but wins at 3G (7.2 Mbps)

3. Jeetendra

If you are subscribing to BSNL 3G (the only one available) do not expect high speed , Only HSDPA ( 3.6 Mbps ) is supported that too at few places but coverage will grow. Anyway until you plan to use your phone as a modem BSNL 3G is good enough for normal usage on mobile such as viewing youtube and surfing.

If you are on any other operator then need to look at the EDGE options because by the time they will roll out 3G these handsets will be obsoleted.

If you are not looking for use in India then you have many more options.

[sgiitk]

Why not wait for a couple of months for the dust to settle on the 3G auctions before deciding.

Incidentally, I was in Ladakh and for almost four days BSNL services went kaput (after all it is Bhai Saheb Nahin Lagega!).

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

In Malayalam, there is a saying - "pada pedichu pandalathu poyappol pandam koluthi pada" - when I ran away to Pandalam fearing a troop movement, I found that it is occupied by armed forces. I joined here, seekign to keep away from FLOSS and licensing issues, and now, look at what I am discussing.

Originally Posted by carboy

Apache & BSD are 'free' licenses. Free as in speech, not free as in food.
GPL is a restrictive license.

GPL is about user's rights; BSD is about hoarding. I would not call it free as speech; it is rather about "Freedom of hoarding" and "freedom to be a parasite:. Apple's OS X is a derivative fo the BSD operating system; and there is a good reason it is not popular (as in widespread).

Theo DeRaadt

, founder of OpenBSD doesn't like the GPL License.
Here's what he said about it.

He is free to have his views; but I rather value my own rights. There is a good reason Google is posting their own modifications to the kernel in the GIT repositories; and there is a good reason greedy corporates get away with not doing the same with APache / BSD licences.

- I write a program which does a simple substring search & release it under the BSD license.
- You take my program & modify it to use the Robin-Karp algorithm to make it faster & release it under the GPL.
- Now, if I want to take your program & modify it to use a Bloom filter along with Robin-Karp, I can't do it because I can no longer release my program under my original BSD license.

I am afraid you got this wrong.

You can continue to use that program under your own (BSD) license, so long as you do not use MY modifications.

I am able to apply GPL to my modifications to your code, because BSD is a subset of the GPL.

If you applied GPL in the first place, I would not be able to apply a different license to your program.

Where GPL wins is here:-

With BSD, I can very well refuse to give you any code (let alone GPL it) to the modifications I make.

If you applied GPL in the first place, I you (or anybody who gets the program from me) can insist that I release my modifications.

In other words, BSD & Apache are free licenses.

I fully agree with you; freedom to go and sit in a corner and allow others to feed on my work is a very valuable freedom. ;-)

And finally, Linux has more hardware manufacturers contributing driver code than any of the *BSD flavors.

IIn reality, we are google's product & advertisers are google's customers.

Now, I like that.

But is it any different with any of the Daily news papers or magazines, or any part of the mass media for that matter?

Now, I should confess that with this discussion, I will be buying an android phone anyway - the cheapest one (currently, Samsung i7500, AFAICT) is a huge percentage of my monthly gross, but then, freedom is never free.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

GPL is about user's rights; BSD is about hoarding. I would not call it free as speech; it is rather about "Freedom of hoarding" and "freedom to be a parasite:. Apple's OS X is a derivative fo the BSD operating system; and there is a good reason it is not popular (as in widespread).

Apache which is based on a license similiar to the BSD one hosts every other website on the internet.

Also, if popularity is a measure then there are more closed sourced products than open source - which means closed source better.
Most of the world is selfish. So most of the world does closed source stuff. The next level of semi-selfish folks chose GPL. The next level of almost unselfish chose Apache/BSD. The totally unselfish ones just release into public domain.
Nothing wrong in being in any of these categories. Without closed source stuff, there would be no software industry.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt"]

He is free to have his views; but I rather value my own rights.

Just like closed source folks value their own rights.
Atleast they aren't hypocritical enough to call their license free or open.
Free means free.
If you are giving away something free, you can't dictate what the other person does with it.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

There is a good reason Google is posting their own modifications to the kernel in the GIT repositories;

Google contributes just enough to avoid being labelled a parasite.
Google is a big company. They can look around & find something to contribute which doesn't hamper their competitive advantage.
If google was a believer in open source, they would have open sourced their search algorithms. But they aren't stupid.
Google is as secretive as any company. And they should be - they owe it to their shareholders.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

and there is a good reason greedy corporates get away with not doing the same with APache / BSD licences.

There is a guy distributing free t-shirts on the road. You take one. But don't give anything back to him. Does that make you greedy?

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

I am afraid you got this wrong.

You can continue to use that program under your own (BSD) license, so long as you do not use MY modifications.

Exactly. You used my code, but locked me out of your improvements. Which is what Theo DeRaadt is complaining about.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

I am able to apply GPL to my modifications to your code, because BSD is a subset of the GPL.

Just like BSD is a subset of a propreitary license.
Someone can take BSD code, make changes & keep it under a propreitary license.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

With BSD, I can very well refuse to give you any code (let alone GPL it) to the modifications I make.

When I release my code under a BSD/Apache license, I do it only if I believe in a free license. Free meaning really free.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

When you give t
And finally, Linux has more hardware manufacturers contributing driver code than any of the *BSD flavors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de...river_advocacy

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

But is it any different with any of the Daily news papers or magazines, or any part of the mass media for that matter?

Atleast the newspaper doesn't get to know which of the articles I did read in the newspaper.

This is how I use Google.
I have 2 browsers installed on my box.
IE8 - which has coookies from all Google & Google related sites blocked.
But because of this I can't use IE8 to check GMail.
Chrome - I use this solely for checking GMail.

I remember the times when doubleclick used to be considered the most evil company in web based stuff. Then they were bought over by Google.

Strangely, I am not so paranoid about Microsoft. Occasionally when I use Bing, I use it from IE8.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by carboy

Free means free.

Have you seen the dictionary meaning of the word "free"?

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

free
adv 1: without restraint; "cows in India are running loose"
[syn: {loose}, {free}]
adj 1: able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion
or restraint; "free enterprise"; "a free port"; "a free
country"; "I have an hour free"; "free will"; "free of
racism"; "feel free to stay as long as you wish"; "a free
choice" [ant: {unfree}]
2: unconstrained or not chemically bound in a molecule or not
fixed and capable of relatively unrestricted motion; "free
expansion"; "free oxygen"; "a free electron" [ant: {bound}]
3: costing nothing; "complimentary tickets"; "free admission"
[syn: {complimentary}, {costless}, {free}, {gratis(p)},
{gratuitous}]
4: not occupied or in use; "a free locker"; "a free lane"
5: not fixed in position; "the detached shutter fell on him";
"he pulled his arm free and ran" [syn: {detached}, {free}]
6: not held in servitude; "after the Civil War he was a free
man" [ant: {unfree}]
7: not taken up by scheduled activities; "a free hour between
classes"; "spare time on my hands" [syn: {spare}, {free}]
8: completely wanting or lacking; "writing barren of insight";
"young recruits destitute of experience"; "innocent of
literary merit"; "the sentence was devoid of meaning" [syn:
{barren}, {destitute}, {devoid}, {free}, {innocent}]
9: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been
told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: {free},
{loose}, {liberal}]
n 1: people who are free; "the home of the free and the brave"
[syn: {free}, {free people}]
v 1: grant freedom to; free from confinement [syn: {free},
{liberate}, {release}, {unloose}, {unloosen}, {loose}]
[ant: {confine}, {detain}]
2: relieve from; "Rid the house of pests" [syn: {rid}, {free},
{disembarrass}]
3: remove or force out from a position; "The dentist dislodged
the piece of food that had been stuck under my gums"; "He
finally could free the legs of the earthquake victim who was
buried in the rubble" [syn: {dislodge}, {free}] [ant:
{deposit}, {lodge}, {stick}, {wedge}]
4: grant relief or an exemption from a rule or requirement to;
"She exempted me from the exam" [syn: {exempt}, {relieve},
{free}] [ant: {apply}, {enforce}, {implement}]
5: make (information) available for publication; "release the
list with the names of the prisoners" [syn: {free},
{release}]
6: free from obligations or duties [syn: {free}, {discharge}]
7: free or remove obstruction from; "free a path across the
cluttered floor" [syn: {free}, {disengage}] [ant: {block},
{close up}, {impede}, {jam}, {obstruct}, {obturate},
{occlude}]
8: let off the hook; "I absolve you from this responsibility"
[syn: {absolve}, {justify}, {free}] [ant: {blame}, {fault}]
9: part with a possession or right; "I am relinquishing my
bedroom to the long-term house guest"; "resign a claim to the
throne" [syn: {release}, {relinquish}, {resign}, {free},
{give up}]
10: release (gas or energy) as a result of a chemical reaction
or physical decomposition [syn: {release}, {free},
{liberate}]
11: make (assets) available; "release the holdings in the
dictator's bank account" [syn: {unblock}, {unfreeze},
{free}, {release}] [ant: {block}, {freeze}, {immobilise},
{immobilize}]

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:

FREE. Not bound to servitude; at liberty to act as one pleases. This word is
put in opposition to slave.
2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states, which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number
of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. Const. U. S.
art. 1, s. 2. 3. It is also put in contradistinction to being bound as an
apprentice; as, an apprentice becomes free on attaining the age of twenty-
one years.
4. The Declaration of Independence asserts that all men are born free,
and in at sense, the term includes all mankind.

GPL does not impose any restrictions on you, as a user. Therefore, it is a free as in freedom license. It is user who is free, not the software.

But some users are also developers, who want to modify and / or redistribute code. The GPL imposes some (or rather, several) obligations on them. These restrictions protect the users' freedoms. Therefore, it is also a copyleft license.

Some of these users who do not want to pass on the freedoms they enjoyed, and therefore are selfish, like the BSD, because the BSD is not a copyleft license.

Yes, in that sense, GPL is not a free "as in the way I want it" kind of license. But, as a normal user who does not know a shell script from html code, I prefer software which comes with a strong copyleft license, because that protects me.

If you are giving away something free, you can't dictate what the other person does with it.

I once downloaded a free / student / evaluation version of Oracle (the database application). It came with several restrictions. AVD antivirus is available free on the net. I cannot use at my office. Evaluation versions of most major software is available free of cost. I cannot dissassemble them.

Finally, have you seen the license of Adobe's acrobat reader, which comes for free?

If google was a believer in open source, they would have open sourced their search algorithms.

Unlike the Linux kernel, the algorithms are
their own work, and they can keep it to themselves.

There is a guy distributing free t-shirts on the road. You take one. But don't give anything back to him. Does that make you greedy?

1. How about selling it to others, and hiding (or even misrepresenting) that I got it for free?

2. GPL does not impose any obligations on you if you use the t-shirts for yourselves. Or if you give them to others in same form you received them. In fact, you can even sell them for a fee, even if you got them free of cost.

Exactly. You used my code, but locked me out of your improvements. Which is what Theo DeRaadt is complaining about.

Read what I wrote again. If your code was under the GPL, there is no way I can lock you out of my modifications, PROVIDED I give those modifications to a third party.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

GPL does not impose any restrictions on you, as a user.

Most propreitary software also doesn't impose any restrictions on me.
I own licensed copies of Win2K & WinXP for years. Till now, they never imposed any restrictions on how I could use them.
There are a few odd propreitary software which do, but not all of them.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Therefore, it is a free as in freedom license. It is user who is free, not the software.

I as a user, have felt very free with my licensed copies of XP & Win2K.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Some of these users who do not want to pass on the freedoms they enjoyed, and therefore are selfish, like the BSD, because the BSD is not a copyleft license.

Your definition of selfish is rather unique & strange. I still don't get how BSD is selfish. They are writing something & telling people they can bloody well do what they want with it - how is that selfish at all?

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

I once downloaded a free / student / evaluation version of Oracle (the database application). It came with several restrictions. AVD antivirus is available free on the net. I cannot use at my office. Evaluation versions of most major software is available free of cost. I cannot dissassemble them.

I don't see how this is relevant.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Finally, have you seen the license of Adobe's acrobat reader, which comes for free?

I don't see how this is relevant.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

1. How about selling it to others, and hiding (or even misrepresenting) that I got it for free?

I have no issues with selling it to others. The author doesn't mind it, so why do you care?

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

2. GPL does not impose any obligations on you if you use the t-shirts for yourselves. Or if you give them to others in same form you received them. In fact, you can even sell them for a fee, even if you got them free of cost.

And?

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Read what I wrote again. If your code was under the GPL, there is no way I can lock you out of my modifications, PROVIDED I give those modifications to a third party.

That's a big "If". What you are basically saying is that if I don't want to be locked out of the changes that you made to my code, I have to discard my license & use your license.

That doesn't sound very 'free' to me.

[xingamazon]

Carboy and Backseatdriver,

Guys cool down. Let us just restrict to talking good or bad about Android and going on explaining what free means etc.

By the way, heard HTC Tattoo is coming to India with price list of Rs 16k, anybody planning to buy that

[jassi]

All - posting my query here from the mobile phones thread as I feel there are more android people here
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post1894924

All - after researching a lot, I was still confused which nexus one variant will work for 3g in India. The conclusion was both at&t and tmobile variants (both can be ordered from google store) support 2100Mhz and so will work in India. So i ordered the tmobile variant (900/aws/2100) from google store instead of at&t (850/1900/2100) Incase someone here is using the google nexus one in india and has tried 3g (bsnl/mtnl) an update would be nice.

any inputs would be nice!

[prasadee]

Originally Posted by jassi

All - posting my query here from the mobile phones thread as I feel there are more android people here
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post1894924

any inputs would be nice!

The differences in the RF bands are only with the 3G bands. AFAIK, India's 3G auction band was for 2100. So 3G should work in either case.

For GSM/GPRS/EDGE, these have quadband RF chips, no issue at all. I have a unlocked G2/Magic/MyTouch 3G, and it works in India.

BTW, good choice of a phone. IMHO, it is currently the best phone available. Soon you should be able to update Eclair to Froyo and get cooler features like the USB tethering.

[aZa]

i wanna see a comparo between HTC tatoo and Samsung i5700! Any help here ?

[jassi]

Originally Posted by prasadee

The differences in the RF bands are only with the 3G bands. AFAIK, India's 3G auction band was for 2100. So 3G should work in either case.

For GSM/GPRS/EDGE, these have quadband RF chips, no issue at all. I have a unlocked G2/Magic/MyTouch 3G, and it works in India.

BTW, good choice of a phone. IMHO, it is currently the best phone available. Soon you should be able to update Eclair to Froyo and get cooler features like the USB tethering.

thanks !! I know its a good choice
I was contemplating between nexus and xperia x10 (drool), but then lack of software updates once sony launched their next gen phone, made me go the nexus way.
It just got delivered today to my friend's place in US - now can't wait to get there (long 20 day wait!)

[amitk26]

Guys nice and never ending discussion on GPL vs BSD, Yes GPL is a copy-left and BSD is not and it is a point of view on what you feel is better.

There is a big difference between Apache 2 and BSD and that big difference lies in the fact that Apache 2 calls for contributors to grant the patent licences along with software license. Further License is withdrawn if the licensee starts legal action against the licensor(s) over
patent infringements within the covered software

Now this kind of arrangement can work if all the licensees ( contributors) can clearly state that there are no 3ed party patents. But like in any modern complex code this kind of due diligence can not be done with out huge investment of time and tools to data-mine on the contributed code.
So while individual developers /entusiasts will not give a 2 hoot and contribute whatever fixes they have, IP / Legal department of big corporates will make sure that no serious big code is contributed to OHA becuase they can not simply certify that there is no 3ed party patent or even an own internal patent which is being given out in few million lines of code.

Also as we see now there are a slew of patent assertions coming up.

This kind of freedom ( depending on how you take it) is even not there in GPL and LGPL , For example you are free to implement AMR-NB or MP3 codec and distribute them under LGPL but still the license fee is payed to respective patent holders.

About Linux Kernel vs Free-BSD

Google ( Or rather Andromeda corp. whom google acquired) had a choice of kernel either Linux of free-BSD they selected Linux kernel ( GPL) Google continued to use Linux kernel despite all the other code in Apache 2.

While for other peaces of code, They went to extent of re-writing toolbox instead of using Busybox for user mode utilities and rewrote Open Binder to create Android binder for simple reason of licensing , But stil they chose not to abondon Linux kernel and use free-BSD ( like Apple )

The reason was simple that Linux Kernel receives wide support from chip-set vendors and hardware manufactures ( so called greedy guys) . Also the so called greedy software guys like IBM are biggest contributors which keeps the community active and Kernel ever evolving.

[aZa]

Guys, i heard there is a i5800 on the anvil???

[abhibh]

Aha finally

YouTube - Android 2.2 Official Video

@aZa just wait for mobiles with Android 2.2 pre-installed. Every now and then new mobiles gonna be launched by Samsung with android. Even Corby series will get android soon.