An update about open source mobile platforms with respect to open governance, held at Software Freedom Day at Hackerspace Brussels (HSBXL)

1. Open
Governance
in Mobile
Software Freedom Day 2013 - HSBXL
Friedger Müffke

2. Report from 2011
● VisionMobile Ltd.
● Author: Liz Laffan
● Partially funded by Webinos
● Open source projects:
○ Android
○ MeeGo
○ Linux
○ Qt
○ WebKit
○ Mozilla
○ Eclipse
○ Symbian

3. Results Open Governance Index 2011
1. Eclipse 84%
2. Linux 71%
3. WebKit 68%
4. Mozilla 65%
5. MeeGo 61%
6. Symbian 58%
7. Qt 58%
8. Android 23%

4. Open Governance Index
1. Access
2. Development
3. Derivatives
4. Community Structure

5. Access (19/45)
1. Is source code freely available to all developers, at the
same time?
2. Is source code available under a permissive OSI-
approved license?
3. Developer support mechanisms – are project mailing
lists, forums, bug-tracking databases, source code
repositories, developer documentation and developer
tools available to all developers?
4. Is the project roadmap available publicly?
5. Transparency of decision mechanisms – are project
meeting minutes/discussions publicly available such
that it is possible to understand why and how decisions
are made relating to the project?

6. Development (18/45)
1. Transparency of contributions and acceptance process
– is the code contribution and acceptance, process
clear, with progress updates of the contribution provided
(via Bugzilla or similar)?
2. Transparency of contributions to the project – can you
identify from whom source code contributions
originated?
3. Accessibility to become a committer – are the
requirements and process to become a committer
documented, and is this an equitable process
4. Transparency of committers – can you identify who
committers to the project are?
5. Does the contribution license require a copyright
assignment, a copyright license or patent grant?

7. Derivatives (6/45)
1. Are trademarks used to control how and where the
platform is used via enforcing a compliance process
prior to distribution?
2. Are go-to-market channels for applications derivatives
constrained by the project in terms of approval,
distribution or discovery?

8. Community Structure (2/45)
1. Is the community structure flat or hierarchical (i.e., are
there tiered rights depending on membership status?)

9. Open Source Mobile Platforms
● Android
○ Google
○ Replicant
○ CyanogenMod / Cyanogen Inc.
● Tizen
● Sailfish OS
● SHR
● Firefox OS
● Ubuntu Touch

10. Android
● Google - android.googlesource.com
○ Jean-Baptiste Quéru quits AOSP due to missing GPU
driver on Nexus 10 (G+ post)
○ Make more core apps available via Google Play
○ Android Compatibility Program, Compatibility Test
Suite
● Cyanogen Inc - github.com/CyanogenMod
○ Services around CM for manufacturers
○ Camera app Focal removed from CM (G+ post)
● Replicant - gitorious.org/replicant
○ Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli, Paul Kocialkowski
○ Only free software

11. Tizen 2 and 3 (IVI)
Web apps
Complicated licensing model
(app challenge until 1 Nov 2013)

12. Sailfish OS
● Nemo project - open
● Mer project - open
● Sailfish Silica (QML/Qt) - closed by Jolla
● Compatible with Android apps
● Licensing under construction

13. Firefox OS
Open as Mozilla
See previous talk
developer.mozilla.org/firefox_os

14. Ubuntu Touch
● Open as Ubuntu - see code of conduct
● No device yet - failed crowd funding
● Ubuntu for Android idea