Unsurprising -- cell phones were never meant to be run via open source software, and all the carriers technically have approval requirements for devices to run on their networks. Anything not certified can be locked out, if they so choose. Though, to mitigate this, at least older models of equipment had the cellular modem as a completely seperate device from the rest of the phone, my guess is that these models no longer have that seperation.

Wow, three comments and three totally different reading of TFA. I probably should RTFA myself.

Damn it. The timely updates was a selling point for me when I bought the Nexus. Oh, well, it's still a damn good phone.

Might have been a good idea to wait for second-generation LTE hardware, though.

Basically, the company has decided to remove CDMA devices from its official support documentation because the technology and software required to make them function correctly is closed-source. The radios and other APK files for a CDMA device must be digitally signed by a carrier, something that can't be open-sourced, and therefore isn't included in the Android Open Source Project.

Don't you hate when people don't open source things they can't legally provide the source for? I mean, why doesn't Google give the source code for iOS? OPEN SOURCE MY ASS GUYS

zedster: Qualcomm != Google

This.

I still don't understand what is mean by "support", or what is going on.... (Not unusual I know.)

Google can still distribute new ROMs they build themselves. They can't distribute the key to sign the radio modules, so projects that want pure AOSP roms can't create the roms themselves and call themselves pure.

Presumably folks can't create their own radio modules for CDMA from now on, but Google does say they will distribute radio modules for those phones.

So I am not clear on what has happened.

Now from this page, http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html

I see something more interesting, that was lightly discussed when Gnex launched and I don't think was ever clarified:

Galaxy Nexus is supported only in GSM/HSPA+ configuration "maguro" and only if it was originally sold with a "yakju" operating system.

Some Gnex devices come with non yakju ROMs and it's not quite clear where their future ROMs will come from, from Google or from Samsung or from the carrier.

Why are their non yakju roms, and what does that mean to the wannabe android developer or consumer with a Gnex?

RoyBatty: so projects that want pure AOSP roms can't create the roms themselves and call themselves pure, or they can call themselves pure but not have a working radio, and that does suck.

Kuroshin: Not Google's fault. Can't blame them.

That's the thing, it's not clear from that article what Google is doing.

Do developers really take the source for the radios and modify them? I've seen instructions at XDA for my GSM SGSII that says, grab the telus radio and it will work on the tmobile phone and give you access to AT&T LTE which seems pretty neat.

But do folks really mod the radio modules themselves?

And just because folks claim this means new roms must come from VZW -- I see nothing to support that claim at all.

But *that* would suck eggs completely.

I loved my Nexus One primarily because roms came from Google.

Kuroshin: Not Google's fault. Can't blame them.

I suppose you could, in a way, if you're the Stallman type.

"Google knowingly chose to put non-open software/hardware in their open-source phone."

Personally, I think open isn't defined in the license, it's defined in how the license is enforced. Windows Mobile (and to a lesser extent, Windows Phone) are perfect examples of this. Once MS got their cash for the OS license, they didn't care what you did with it. On the other hand, you see Android, which is itself open-source, being hobbled by locked bootloaders and things like this. Google, for all of their waving of the open-source banner over the last few years, does remarkably little to ensure that what becomes of its product remains open.

Technology from 1936!

This thread is useless without pics of one of the inventors of CDMA technology.

As the owner of a Galaxy Nexus, I have to admit that I am totally, 100%, unconcerned by this. Of course, that may be because I don't have one of the crappy CDMA ones. GSM FTW.

/yakju, too (now)
//CM9, where are you?
/yeah yeah, no ETAs

Marine1: Kuroshin: Not Google's fault. Can't blame them.

I suppose you could, in a way, if you're the Stallman type.

"Google knowingly chose to put non-open software/hardware in their open-source phone."

Is that the "if it's not GPL, it's not open source" argument?

/not a fan of GPL or licensing source code under Creative Commons for that matter

ChubbyTiger: As the owner of a Galaxy Nexus, I have to admit that I am totally, 100%, unconcerned by this. Of course, that may be because I don't have one of the crappy CDMA ones. GSM FTW.

/yakju, too (now)
//CM9, where are you?
/yeah yeah, no ETAs

So Google says, "Galaxy Nexus is supported only in GSM/HSPA+ configuration "maguro" and only if it was originally sold with a "yakju" operating system."

So what does that mean? Is your phone not supported by Google? What does support mean? Why weren't people told about this *prior* to purchasing their phones?

Pentaxian: This thread is useless without pics of one of the inventors of CDMA technology.

[www.galbreath.net image 640x845]

[digitalseye.com image 500x305]

She didn't invent CDMA she was one of the ones responsible for the idea that ALL wireless technologies spawned from not just CDMA.

thisone: Marine1: Kuroshin: Not Google's fault. Can't blame them.

I suppose you could, in a way, if you're the Stallman type.

"Google knowingly chose to put non-open software/hardware in their open-source phone."

Is that the "if it's not GPL, it's not open source" argument?

/not a fan of GPL or licensing source code under Creative Commons for that matter

Eh, in a way. I'm referring to how Stallman tends to treat the whole FOSS thing as a holistic issue. The guy literally refuses to use certain products because he can't modify every. last. line. of. code. that runs on the machine... not just the OS and programs, but the drivers, firmware, etc. He uses the argument that it's not a completely open computer unless ALL of the stuff that makes the computer run can be seen and modified for free. His GPL thing is his way of going about it, but I'm not sure of all of its implications.

Ultimately, that's sort of what you see here. Google took their product that was supposed to illustrate the cutting edge of open-source smartphones, and let Samsung put a closed-source solution in for a critical component. I'm no open-source guy, but I'll agree that it was sort of stupid.

I think Android has really gone a long ways in not only pushing open-source software, but revealing just how little difference there can be between open-source and shared/closed-source software in the real world. Sure, you can say that the software is free, but if you don't require that the bootloaders be unlocked, make sure it's updated consistently, or make sure that what's added on to the OS is also open, you've stripped out most of the advantages that open-source proponents constantly brag about. At that point, you'd be better off just having a loosely-enforced closed license like Microsoft does with Windows CE/ Windows Mobile/ Windows Phone products. If you have an Android device with a locked bootloader and closed-source code running hardware components, there's little difference between it and the Windows Phone sitting next to it in the eyes of a hacker. Both will have to be unlocked, and short of producing and selling brand-new phones with pirated WP7 ROMs loaded onto them, you really can't do anything to draw the attention of Microsoft... the terms of the license are much more strict than Android's, but in practice, they're almost never enforced, and you could even argue that Microsoft encourages you to break the phone open with their sales of tools like ChevronWP7.

Android has become a wash of sorts for openness. Until you see Google start to force OEMs and carriers to leave the devices completely open, Android will remain as open as the hardware and software that it's packaged with, which is really no more open than what Microsoft pushes with WP7. Apple, of course, remains closed.

RoyBatty: ChubbyTiger: As the owner of a Galaxy Nexus, I have to admit that I am totally, 100%, unconcerned by this. Of course, that may be because I don't have one of the crappy CDMA ones. GSM FTW.

/yakju, too (now)
//CM9, where are you?
/yeah yeah, no ETAs

So Google says, "Galaxy Nexus is supported only in GSM/HSPA+ configuration "maguro" and only if it was originally sold with a "yakju" operating system."

So what does that mean? Is your phone not supported by Google? What does support mean? Why weren't people told about this *prior* to purchasing their phones?

I have absolutely no idea what this pronouncement means. I also don't care, since I do have a GSM/yakju phone. For those without the yakju build, it's an easy fix. Heck, it's pretty easy to do anything on this phone. Unlock, root, upgrade, etc in about 10 minutes with little to no risk.

That a company like Verizon sells a developer phone and won't really support full-on development on it does not surprise me in the least, either.

You know how you install Linux and then you have to separately install your wireless drivers because those aren't open source? It's like that.It just means you need the binary that google is saying they'll provide and can't build a working ROM just based on the Android open source project

t3knomanser: Wow, three comments and three totally different reading of TFA. I probably should RTFA myself.

welcometohumanity.jpg ?

Seems like a non-story to me. The handset companies will just have to provide their own CDMA chipset drivers from now on for legal reasons.

Android was never intended to be "open source" for the owner of the phone in the first place since the manufacturers have always been allowed to lock it down however they see fit.

MrEricSir: Seems like a non-story to me. The handset companies will just have to provide their own CDMA chipset drivers from now on for legal reasons.

Android was never intended to be "open source" for the owner of the phone in the first place since the manufacturers have always been allowed to lock it down however they see fit.

And therein lies the problem.

imgod2u: The CDMA2000 protocol used by Verizon and Sprint is patented and closely guarded.

Is this possible?

I had thought to get a patent, you had to disclose.

That's the quid pro quo for asking for protection for a temporary monopoly for X years. You have to disclose your invention, or else, no patent.

But that's theory, is it possible in reality that CDMA is both patented and a close guarded secret?

t3knomanser: Wow, three comments and three totally different reading of TFA. I probably should RTFA myself.

No CDMA is not nearly as secure as GSM, no matter what verizon tells people but since people hate ATT it will get a lot of response.

imgod2u: The CDMA2000 protocol used by Verizon and Sprint is patented and closely guarded

Do you even know who holds those patents? And if support for that protocol is being continued? I think you dont and that you are completely farking retarded on the subject since everyone is going to a more secure LTE protocol and even verizon is getting on board since they realize their old technology is farking dead.

Its also why verizon poured money into blocking the t-mo/att merger to stop them from getting their hands on t-mo's spectrum band.

cmunic8r99: This doesn't have anything to do with the hardware or its certification. This has to do with the files required to make the CDMA radios work is closed source

This.

/mobile device administrator

imgod2u: Marine1: Kuroshin: Not Google's fault. Can't blame them.

I suppose you could, in a way, if you're the Stallman type.

"Google knowingly chose to put non-open software/hardware in their open-source phone."

Personally, I think open isn't defined in the license, it's defined in how the license is enforced. Windows Mobile (and to a lesser extent, Windows Phone) are perfect examples of this. Once MS got their cash for the OS license, they didn't care what you did with it. On the other hand, you see Android, which is itself open-source, being hobbled by locked bootloaders and things like this. Google, for all of their waving of the open-source banner over the last few years, does remarkably little to ensure that what becomes of its product remains open.

The CDMA2000 protocol used by Verizon and Sprint is patented and closely guarded. In order to not have a phone that doesn't have "non-open software" on it, Google would have to avoid Verizon and Sprint entirely.

True, but guys like Stallman don't care. Actually, I don't think he even owns a cell phone.