I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it. (After some coercing, of course.)
I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it. (After some coercing, of course.)
Because carriers are staggeringly stupid, I think.
> I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it.
I wish that were true: "Unlike the DROID, the Milestone has a bootloader that only allows signed Firmware to load. This prevents users from booting Custom ROM images not signed by Motorola that have become popular in the Droid modding community."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milesto...
Many Motorola phones are similarly restricted. Did I mention carriers are phenomenally stupid?
If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. Instead, they do the equivalent of asking you really nicely not to root the device.
Motorola tries harder than most, though, I will agree.
Not unless it was done quite recently. The Droid X and Droid 2 are still locked down.
> If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do.
From what I've read the Droid X's bootloader is quite a bit like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
Ie. apps that only use the Java system libraries don't have to be GPL'ed, only modifications of the VM itself. Google didn't want to place this restriction on Android vendors.
also, from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.