Aktion - free milestones bootloader

[MeetAndroid]

Fragt doch nuutsch!
Motorola gibt nach 30 Minuten auf

 

[Lowbyte]

Ich hab mich gerade mal bei der FFH angemeldet.

Mal sehen - unseren Artikel als offenen Brief mal sehen wie man da was veröffentlichen kann!

 

[KurrKurr]

Sobald die Amazon Rezension freigeschaltet wurde, können wir sie ja alle als "Hilfreich" kennzeichnen um die nach oben zu pushen
Die von janus01 finde ich auch sehr gelungen

Die von janus01 hab ich auch schon als Sehr Hilfreich bewertet.

Chris

P.S.: Noch was: Warum nennen wir den Gründern von FSF hier Harald Wxxxx? Ist doch nicht wie bei Harry Potter ("You-Know-Who" bzw. "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named."... )

 

[Lowbyte]

Uuups janus 01 hat schon eine geschrieben......
Na ja - ich hab meins ja nicht von Amazon... obwohl ich sonst alles über amazon beziehe. Ich habs über o2myHandy da o2 auch mein Provider ist.

 

[payce]

Zwecks eventuelle Stellungnahme Motorola zu GPL und Apache: Auf facebook und Moto Dev Blog braucht man nichts mehr posten. Facebook wird mit "free the bootloader" zugespammt (was gut ist!!!) und Moto Dev Blog löscht anscheinend alle comments bzw. ist unheimlich langsam. Ich melde mich jetzt (nach Empfehlung durch Motorola - ich habe Ihnen nicht gesagt, um was es geht) im Milestone Owner Support Forum an (klick) und werde - *unheimlicher Unterton anschalt* - d i e F r a g e - *unheimlicher Unterton ausschalt* dort stellen: grob "How does the locked bootloader comply with GPL/Apache?". Sobald online poste ich den Link bzw. die Antwort. Im schlechtesten Falle können wir eine Löschung des Posts sogar ausnutzen (ist ja dann klar, was Sache ist).

/edit: Ging schneller als erwartet. Hier der Post in Reinform (falls er gelöscht wird):

Hi there!
I decided to post the question here as my comments in the Moto Dev Blog are deleted right away (which is pretty odd btw).
Motorola uses Android software for the Milestone (obviously). Android is licensed via GnuGPLv2 (Kernel for instance) and Apache. See here: http://source.android.com/license
According to GPL and Apache the modified parts of the Android software HAVE to be published somewhere. Motorola does this here (as far as I know): https://opensource.motorola.com/sf/frs/do/viewRelease/projects.milestone/frs.milestone.01_15_0
The bootloader's source code (part of the software) and the source code of the signature proofing routine (part of the software, too) have to be published somewhere, too! If I understand everything correctly, even the signature key (part of the source code) has to be published. Where to find? I did search, but can't find it anywhere.

So actually my question is: Where can I find exactly those routine's source code? If I can not find them, why not? According to the licenses I should.
Basically everything can be cut down to the threads title: How does a locked bootloader comply with GnuGPL and Apache?

I am greatly looking forward for your answers! Thanks in advance!

Ich habe absichtlich alles so einfach und eindeutig wie möglich geschrieben. Ich hoffe, damit kann man jemanden festnageln. Schauen mer mal. Hier die Verlinkung: click

 

[Kisja]

So ich habe Mal ne Mail verfasst. Vielleicht möchte sie ja jemand korrekturlesen (bitte mit ROT markieren)

Dear gpl-violations.org members,
I would like to report a possible GPL violation by Motorola.
First excuse me for my bad english, but I'll try to describe the problem as good as possible.

Many people (including me) have baught a Motorola Milestone Smartphone which is using Android 2.0.X as operation system. There have been many research and descussions about the posibility to install a custom rom on that device. We all know, that making changes on the base software/firmware could void warrenty, but since Android is an open source project (major part is under the Apache license) with some parts under the BSD and GPL license, many people want to use the advanteges of an open system and make changes on the Linux Kernel to implement optimizations or new features on that device.

Such modification have been already made for the Google Nexus One, many other HTC devices AND Motorola Droid (the american CDMA version of Milestone).

During the Milestone customization research we and some other groups (start [And Developers]) have found out, that Motorola uses signatures to lock the bootloader, kernel and the root/boot filesystem (init sequence) on the Milestone. But the almost identical Phone called Droid is not locked that way.

Shortly explained, there are several loaders. The first loader (mbmloader) makes a signature check on the second bootloader (mbm). The mbm bootloader makes some initializations, checks the lbl signature and loads it. lbl checks the kernel signature and if all signature checks pass, the kernel is loaded by lbl.
The mbmloader part resides on a protected nand storage, but the rest can be accessed freely. But if any part of that chain is replaced by an unsigned binary, the device stops booting and can not be recovered.

And here come the real problems:

1. The LBL bootloader is licensed by the GPL and the source is provided by Motorola. BUT it is not possible to compile and (re)install it, because there are no installation scripts available and if they were, there is no possibility to sign the compiled binary. So the recompiled (and maybe modified binary) would not pass the signature check and the phone would not boot anymore.

2. the Kernel sources are provided by Motorola too, but there is the same problem with the installation scripts and signatures. All parts of the kernel (kernel itself and kernel modules) are signed and can not be replaced with recompiled binaries. Also no installation instructions and no installation scripts are provided by Motorola.

3. The major part of coreutils ist placed under /system/bin. The /system partition is mounted by the /init.rc script ro and is not signed. It is possible to manipulate this partition with a special bootloader mode and ADB. But the init binary is placed on the root partition (/init) which IS signed. So it is not possible to recompile and replace the init binary, which is part of coreutils (hhm, I'm not sure at the moment, maybe its an own Android development, then it undelies the apache license).

4. the signing procedures and the signature proof routines are part of the OSS project (modified lbl for example), but Motorola does not provide the according sources.

We think that according to GPLv2 these four points violate the GPLv2 license. GPLv2 does not prohibid to sign or lock the binaries (like GPLv3 does), but a possibility to install the binaries (in form of installation scripts) should be given.

It is also known that it would not be a problem for Motorola to provide a signed mbmloader or lbl (bootloader part, which loads the kernel) which bypasses the signature check on the kernel and allows loading custom kernels. It could happen by installing a simple update even OTA.

As a good example the Google Nexus One can be taken. It has a special Bootloader mode, which informs about the garanty and unlocks the bootloader for modifications. (YouTube video: YouTube - How to unlock and root a Google Nexus One)

And last but not least:

4. The open source licenses are not provided by Motorola directly. In the printed user guide (included with the device) there is only a remark, that the license can be opened on the phone for reading (Settings -> About phone -> Legal information -> Open source licenses) or looked up on the motorola website (opensource.motorola.com). There is no information about which licenses are used. The text talks only about "open source licenses". In the mentioned settings menu, there are Google's legal informations and used licenses (GPLv2, Apache, BSD), but they can not be printed (only viewed).

A really nice report can be found in german here: Motorola Milestone ? Ein ROM, sie zu knechten ? und ewig zu binden » Motorola, Milestone, Roms, Android, Custom, Software » mobiFlip.de

and an english translation here: EtherPad: eRWgVYIxzK

More details about the done research on the Milestone can be found here: motorola_milestone [And Developers]
and details about the booting sequence can be found here: motorola_milestone:boot_chain [And Developers]

The sources of the kernel and modules are provided by Motorola here: https://opensource.motorola.com/sf/frs/do/viewRelease/projects.milestone/frs.milestone.01_15_0

You are welcome to participate the discussions on our forums (German):
https://www.android-hilfe.de/forum/...ueber-custom-roms-seitens-motorola.17334.html
https://www.android-hilfe.de/forum/.../aktion-free-milestones-bootloader.18642.html

It would be very nice the read your opinion about this issues! Maybe you could help us to "free the Milestone".

Thanks and Regards,
Kisja

 

[janus_01]

Dear gpl-violations.org members,
I would like to report a possible GPL violation by Motorola.
At first: please excuse me for my bad english, but I'll try to describe the problem as accurate as possible.

Many people (including me) have bought a Motorola Milestone Smartphone which is using Android 2.0.X as operation system. There has been a lot of research and development on installing custom firmwares on the device. We all know, that making changes on the base software/firmware could void our warranty, but since Android is an open source project (major part is under the Apache license) with some parts under the BSD and GPL license, many people see the advantages of an open system to make changes on the Linux Kernel to implement optimizations or new features on that device.

Such modifications have been already made for Google's Nexus One, many other HTC devices AND the Motorola Droid (the U.S. CDMA version of Milestone).

During Milestone customization research we and other groups (start [And Developers]) found, that Motorola uses signatures to lock the bootloader, kernel and the root/boot filesystem (init sequence) on the Milestone. But the almost identical Phone called Droid is not locked in a similar way.

Shortly explained, there are several loaders. The first loader (mbmloader) does a signature check on the second bootloader (mbm). The mbm bootloader does some initializations, checks the lbl signature and loads it. lbl checks the kernel signature and if all signature checks pass, the kernel is loaded by the lbl.
The mbmloader part resides on a protected nand storage, but the rest can be accessed freely. But if any part of that chain is replaced by an unsigned binary, the device stops booting and can not be recovered.

rest müsste mal noch jemand machen

Ups, so super ist meine korrektur auch nicht. Hab seit 3 jahren keine englischen texte mehr geschrieben bloß gelesen und flame beiträge auf Motofacebook

 

[Luke]

Oh Man, das ist natürlich auch eine Idee bei Amazon zu schreiben
Hätte ich auch dran denken können... ...ich schreibe auch noch eine Rezession...

 

[Steven]

Oh je, die Wirtschaft ist doch schon in der Krise

 

[adendum]

[...]Ich melde mich jetzt (nach Empfehlung durch Motorola - ich habe Ihnen nicht gesagt, um was es geht) im Milestone Owner Support Forum an (klick) und werde - *unheimlicher Unterton anschalt* - d i e F r a g e - *unheimlicher Unterton ausschalt* dort stellen: grob "How does the locked bootloader comply with GPL/Apache?". Sobald online poste ich den Link bzw. die Antwort. Im schlechtesten Falle können wir eine Löschung des Posts sogar ausnutzen (ist ja dann klar, was Sache ist).[...]

Diese Diskussion ist da schon länger vorhanden ->
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/22962?start=45&tstart=30
Und die Supportforum hat nur par Leute die helfen, es ist eher eine p2p community, wo die Benutzer sich gegenseitig helfen, mit nur par Motorola mitarbeiter. Die sind leider durch bürokratie blockiert uns genaue aussagen zu geben. Diese habe ich schon damals im 2.0.1 thema festgestellt und es wurde auch mehrmals erwähnt. Nur so zum Information : /

 

[Lowbyte]

So public hier einzusehen
https://supportforums.motorola.com/message/118758#118758

@kisja
Mail hoffentlich schon raus!?
Ansonsten hätt ich zu schnell gefeuert was ich nicht hoffe

 

[Kisja]

Arrrgh, zu schnell!!! Ist noch nicht raus!!!

EDIT: So ist jetzt raus, habe die Korrekturen eingepflegt.

Dear gpl-violations.org members,
I would like to report a possible GPL violation by Motorola.
At first excuse me for my bad english, but I'll try to describe the problem as accurate as possible.

Many people (including me) have bought a Motorola Milestone Smartphone which is using Android 2.0.X as operation system. There has been a lot of research and development on installing custom firmwares on the device. We all know, that making changes on the base software/firmware could void our warranty, but since Android is an open source project (major part is under the Apache license) with some parts under the BSD and GPL license, many people see the advantages of an open system to make changes on the Linux Kernel to implement optimizations or new features on that device.

Such modifications have been already made for Google's Nexus One, many other HTC devices AND the Motorola Droid (the U.S. CDMA version of Milestone).

During Milestone customization research we and other groups (start [And Developers]) found, that Motorola uses signatures to lock the bootloader, kernel and the root/boot filesystem (init sequence) on the Milestone. But the almost identical Phone called Droid is not locked in a similar way.

Shortly explained, there are several loaders. The first loader (mbmloader) does a signature check on the second bootloader (mbm). The mbm bootloader does some initializations, checks the lbl signature and loads it. lbl checks the kernel signature and if all signature checks pass, the kernel is loaded by the lbl.
The mbmloader part resides on a protected nand storage, but the rest can be accessed freely. But if any part of that chain is replaced by an unsigned binary, the device stops booting and can not be recovered.

And here come the real problems:

1. The LBL bootloader is licensed by the GPL and the source is provided by Motorola. BUT it is not possible to compile and (re)install it, because there are no installation scripts available and if they were, there is no possibility to sign the compiled binary. So the recompiled (and maybe modified binary) would not pass the signature check and the phone would not boot anymore.

2. the Kernel sources are provided by Motorola too, but there is the same problem with the installation scripts and signatures. All parts of the kernel (kernel itself and kernel modules) are signed and can not be replaced with recompiled binaries. Also no installation instructions and no installation scripts are provided by Motorola.

3. The major part of coreutils ist placed under /system/bin. The /system partition is mounted by the /init.rc script ro and is not signed. It is possible to manipulate this partition with a special bootloader mode and ADB. But the init binary is placed on the root partition (/init) which IS signed. So it is not possible to recompile and replace the init binary, which is part of coreutils (hhm, I'm not sure at the moment, maybe its an own Android development, then it undelies the apache license).

4. the signing procedures and the signature proof routines are part of the OSS project (modified lbl for example), but Motorola does not provide the according sources.

We think that according to GPLv2 these four points violate the GPLv2 license. GPLv2 does not prohibid to sign or lock the binaries (like GPLv3 does), but a possibility to install the binaries (in form of installation scripts) should be given.

It is also known that it would not be a problem for Motorola to provide a signed mbmloader or lbl (bootloader part, which loads the kernel) which bypasses the signature check on the kernel and allows loading custom kernels. It could happen by installing a simple update even OTA.

As a good example the Google Nexus One can be taken. It has a special Bootloader mode, which informs about the garanty and unlocks the bootloader for modifications. (YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q283jtqrL_0)

And last but not least:

5. The open source licenses are not provided by Motorola directly. In the printed user guide (included with the device) there is only a remark, that the license can be opened on the phone for reading (Settings -> About phone -> Legal information -> Open source licenses) or looked up on the motorola website (opensource.motorola.com). There is no information about which licenses are used. The text talks only about "open source licenses". In the mentioned settings menu, there are Google's legal informations and used licenses (GPLv2, Apache, BSD), but they can not be printed (only viewed).

A really nice report can be found in german here: http://www.mobiflip.de/2010/02/motorola-milestone-ein-rom-sie-zu-knechten-und-ewig-zu-binden/

and an english translation here: http://piratenpad.de/eRWgVYIxzK

More details about the done research on the Milestone can be found here: http://and-developers.com/motorola_milestone
and details about the booting sequence can be found here: http://and-developers.com/motorola_milestone:boot_chain

The sources of the kernel and modules are provided by Motorola here: https://opensource.motorola.com/sf/frs/do/viewRelease/projects.milestone/frs.milestone.01_15_0

You are welcome to participate the discussions on our forums (German):
[URL="https://www.android-hilfe.de/forum/root-hacking-modding-fuer-motorola-milestone.60/neue-stellungnahme-aussage-ueber-custom-roms-seitens-motorola.17334.html[/URL]
[URL="https://www.android-hilfe.de/forum/root-hacking-modding-fuer-motorola-milestone.60/aktion-free-milestones-bootloader.18642.html[/URL]

It would be very nice the read your opinion about this issues! Maybe you could help us to "free the Milestone".

Thanks and Regards,
Kisja

 

[Lowbyte]

Okay - iss doch nicht so schlimm
Der Inhalt wird ja im wesentlichen gleich geblieben sein.

Wie gesagt - nicht böse sein - das wurde so aufgefasst als wenn ich es verfasst hätte.........

Hab versucht das "richtig zu stellen"

 

[Kisja]

Klar, macht nix, aber fürs nächste Mal einfach nen kühleren Kopf bewahren
Ist cool wenn die sache jetzt ins Rollen kommt, aber wir sollten auch nichts überstürzt machen. Hätt ich das jetzt nicht mitbekommen, wärs etwas komisch geworden, da die Mail ja noch garnicht raus war.

Also immer Ruhe bewahren und Schritte am Besten miteinander absprechen/koordinieren. Es geht ja "um die Sache" und die soll ja nicht schief gehen

 

[Lowbyte]

Hey - gas ist rechts ..........
Öhem okay okay - bremspedalmalsuchwoissesdenn

Hab mal gehört das es bei Männern den 3. Frühling gibt..... Ich bin halt noch im 1.

 

[mareher]

Ich bin mal gespannt, in wie weit Moto dazu Stellung bezieht bzw. ob sie überhaupt darauf reagieren. Eigentlich müssten sie ja auf die "Anschuldigung" des Verstoßes gegen die Lizenzen antworten. Mal schauen ob das passiert. Bin auf jeden Fall gespannt.

Gruß
Martin

 

[adendum]

Joar, bevor meine leben wieder am Wochenende anfängt, hab ich versucht par Medienportale über diese Situation zu informieren.
bis jetzt hab ich den e-mail, was ihr unten findet, an folgende Redaktionen los geschickt:

• Gizmodo
• Engadget & eMobile
  
• Mobile-Review
• Eurodroid
• GSMArena & Blog
• Pocketnow
• Slashdot
• Tgdaily
• AndroidArena
• BoyGeniousReport
• AndroidAndMe

Falls euch noch welche einfallen -> PM / Antwort / Email : )

Motorola Angers European Customers With ‘Milestones’ Decisive Limits

Good evening to you all at <site> staff,

I was hoping that you could maybe publish this article or at least inform people
about this situation, of false advertising(or lack of information), Collision of
OSS (Open Source Software) Principles and possible GPLv2 Violations from
Motorola.

I have been following the DROiD news since it was announced, you can understand
how excited i was, when i heard that it was coming over the pond under the name
Motorola Milestone. Motorola even admitted at during the MWC 2010, that the
Milestone was _indeed_ the first device using android 2.0, therefore confirming
that DROiD and Milestone are the same, except the radio part. (
http://mediacenter.motorola.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=12433&NewsAreaID=2
)

It was not a pleasant surprise that when the European community discovered that
the boot loader was locked. When we approached Motorola with the question - why?
They not so kindly refused to discuss the topic with us, suggesting, that if we
were interested in an open boot-loader, we should go to a different manufacturer
(
Custom ROMs and Motorola's Android Handsets - MOTODEV Discussion Boards
). There was of no information regarding this available in the web and from
Motorola during launch, wich is why so many of us here, in Europe (and now
Canada) hoped that we'd have a new powerful platform to use and play with. They
explicitly marketed the device with the slogans like "It's the phone with out
compromise" and "Without Limits" (the latter was directly printed on the
box...).

One more thing that angers us over the pond is the fact, that when they began
to advertise it (about a month after it was released Dec '09 ) People started to
see the 24.5 day cycle auto focus bug, that also had plagued the us device. The
worst part of this, the DROiD received an update a few days before the
commercials went live. Our update came in the beginning of this month, which
means that it took them 2 extra months to get the fix overseas. Wich means, that
the early adapters had a basically useless camera in the device (i received my
unit middle of November, it doesn't take a genius to see how long i had to wait)
until a month ago. Motorola tried to calm us with P.R. and started a campaign(
Motorola Europe | Facebook), which
backfired... badly:
Angry European MILESTONE users launch Facebook TERROR ATTACK on Motorola! EURODROID – Google Android phone news

To make the matters worse, The Latin American's still haven't received the
update, which is _way_ over due. Also the LatAm Site falsely advertised, that the
Milestone Ships with flash 10.1 ( https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/24393?tstart=5 )
The Official Motorola Support forums Staff has
done the best they can, but there still seems to be a lot of bureaucracy between
them and the information we need (
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/19552?start=650&tstart=0 | :wub: to
Matt, the Motorola Forums Manager for his support! ).

There is also some concerns regarding the GPLv2 Compliance of the
boot-loader (which also confuses us), Since Motorola has not clarified that
part. Even thou the boot-loader section of the Source they released, directly
states that it is GPLv2, which would also suggest that the code checking
algorithm should be in there. (
https://supportforums.motorola.com/message/118758#118758&&
https://supportforums.motorola.com/message/118675#118675)

So I hope you can understand our confusion and anger, I hope you can find this
helpful and publish this and let the world know what a "Milestone" The Motorola Milestone
really is.

Signed,
Andy S.

More Links / Information:
http://alldroid.org/viewtopic.php?f=259&t=2793(Also contains references to the
original topic and text from German users, wich is fairly well summarized)
Motorola Angers European Customers With ‘Milestones’ Decisive Limits
https://supportforums.motorola.com/community/manager/softwareupgrades( Motorola's
Official time line, which is pretty much useless... especially since the AF bug was
known _before_ the Phone was released and the site was only published after the
backslash in Motorola Support Forums, shortly before the Europeans received the
update )
https://supportforums.motorola.com/community/google-android/milestone?view=discussions&start=5
http://and-developers.com/motorola_milestone:custom_recovery:mwc_2010_milestone_awareness_campaign
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/26/motorola-milestone-skipping-on-music-playback-perfect-for-billy/
http://www.techknots.com/mobiles/motorola-angers-european-customers-with-milestones-decisive-limits/
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/24393?tstart=5

 

[Lowbyte]

Mir auch! uuups 10 zeichen

 

[bob loblaw]

Engadget berichtet gerade über die Fehler bei der Audiowiedergabe beim Netzwechsel.
Eine gute Chance, den signierten Bootloader und alle anderen Ärgerlichkeiten des Milestones mal in den Comments zu erwähnen.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/26/motorola-milestone-skipping-on-music-playback-perfect-for-billy/

 

[Kisja]

Ok Leute, nix gut,
hab eine Antwort von Armijn Hemel (gpl-violations.com) bekommen und in seinen Augen siehts nicht gut aus. Ich zitier Mal sein Antwort (hoffe dass das ok ist.)

hi!

first of all, this is not legal advise, I am not a lawyer, etc.

[snip]

> During Milestone customization research we and other groups (start [And
> Developers]) found, that Motorola uses signatures to lock the
> bootloader, kernel and the root/boot filesystem (init sequence) on the
> Milestone. But the almost identical Phone called Droid is not locked in
> a similar way.
>
> Shortly explained, there are several loaders. The first loader
> (mbmloader) does a signature check on the second bootloader (mbm). The
> mbm bootloader does some initializations, checks the lbl signature and
> loads it. lbl checks the kernel signature and if all signature checks
> pass, the kernel is loaded by the lbl.
> The mbmloader part resides on a protected nand storage, but the rest can
> be accessed freely. But if any part of that chain is replaced by an
> unsigned binary, the device stops booting and can not be recovered.
>
> And here come the real problems:
>
> 1. The LBL bootloader is licensed by the GPL and the source is provided
> by Motorola. BUT it is not possible to compile and (re)install it,
> because there are no installation scripts available and if they were,
> there is no possibility to sign the compiled binary. So the recompiled
> (and maybe modified binary) would not pass the signature check and the
> phone would not boot anymore.
​

Signing the binary is not a violation of GPLv2. It's perhaps not very
nice, but it's not a violation. I will talk to Motorola regarding the
scripts to compile the binary.

> 2. the Kernel sources are provided by Motorola too, but there is the
> same problem with the installation scripts and signatures. All parts of
> the kernel (kernel itself and kernel modules) are signed and can not be
> replaced with recompiled binaries. Also no installation instructions and
> no installation scripts are provided by Motorola.
​

I don't see this as a violation. Installation instructions are not a
license requirement. Installation scripts, that's a rather grey area.

> 3. The major part of coreutils ist placed under /system/bin. The /system
> partition is mounted by the /init.rc script ro and is not signed. It is
> possible to manipulate this partition with a special bootloader mode and
> ADB. But the init binary is placed on the root partition (/init) which
> IS signed. So it is not possible to recompile and replace the init
> binary, which is part of coreutils (hhm, I'm not sure at the moment,
> maybe its an own Android development, then it undelies the apache license).
​

I don't think this is a violation.

> 4. the signing procedures and the signature proof routines are part of
> the OSS project (modified lbl for example), but Motorola does not
> provide the according sources.
>
> We think that according to GPLv2 these four points violate the GPLv2
> license. GPLv2 does not prohibid to sign or lock the binaries (like
> GPLv3 does), but a possibility to install the binaries (in form of
> installation scripts) should be given.
​

As I said, this is a rather grey area. The 'installation' thing is not
defined in a clear way. Installation on what? The file system or the
device? Is the file system governed by the license and thus should you
be able to install it on the device? It's not easy, seriously.

> It is also known that it would not be a problem for Motorola to provide
> a signed mbmloader or lbl (bootloader part, which loads the kernel)
> which bypasses the signature check on the kernel and allows loading
> custom kernels. It could happen by installing a simple update even OTA.
>
> As a good example the Google Nexus One can be taken. It has a special
> Bootloader mode, which informs about the garanty and unlocks the
> bootloader for modifications. (YouTube video:
> YouTube - How to unlock and root a Google Nexus One)
​

The Milestone is not a developer phone, again, I don't see an issue
there.

> And last but not least:
>
> 5. The open source licenses are not provided by Motorola directly. In
> the printed user guide (included with the device) there is only a
> remark, that the license can be opened on the phone for reading
> (Settings -> About phone -> Legal information -> Open source licenses)
> or looked up on the motorola website (opensource.motorola.com). There is
> no information about which licenses are used. The text talks only about
> "open source licenses". In the mentioned settings menu, there are
> Google's legal informations and used licenses (GPLv2, Apache, BSD), but
> they can not be printed (only viewed).
​

The GPL does not require a print version of the license, or that the
licenses can be printed. I don't see a violation there.

> It would be very nice the read your opinion about this issues! Maybe you
> could help us to "free the Milestone".
​

Honestly, I don't see the problem. We have had several reports about
this already and I have discussed it in depth with Motorola two weeks
ago.

armijn