Talk:List of custom Android distributions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should we have a more comprehensive list of Android distributions?

This article was substantially trimmed (by an editor single-handedly, I believe) to remove every entry that didn't seem to have a corresponding Wikipedia article. The editor also added comments and talk-page warnings forbidding the addition of new entries that didn't have a corresponding Wikipedia article. I believe the former list was encyclopedic and not overly long, and that several entries didn't necessarily fail notability criteria any more than the current ones even though they lacked an article, and that it should be reinstated. Should the strict warnings about only including Android distributions with a Wikipedia articles be removed, and (at least the more prominent9 entries be reinstated? LjL (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have time to start stubs about the custom ROMs that you believe "don't necessarily fail notability criteria", feel free to list them at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Technology_and_tools. Be sure to include as much information as possible (such as webpages, articles, or other reference material). If they truly are notable, someone will probably create articles about them sooner or later. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or I could add them to this list if I believe they are notable enoguh (or simply important enough for this list, since let me stress again, lists don't necessarily require notability of every item)... despite your unilateral diktat not to do this, unless the community at large agrees with you. Just because you decided that your threshold for inclusion in this list is having an article doesn't make it everyone's. --LjL (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you propose the new inclusion criteria should be? I think it is a lot easier to maintain this list and fight spam when the inclusion criteria is simply that every entry needs to have an associated article before it is included. Whether in the form of "List of..." or "Comparison of..." (among other formats), stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's core content policies, like WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:What Wikipedia is not (see especially WP:LINKFARM and WP:IINFO), as well as site-wide guidelines, like WP:Spam, WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Is your intention to list every possible policy until one of them applies? Let's reason it out instead of throwing random policy cards.

The main issue I see with including most available Android distributions is that there are a number of "builds" on XDA which are just that, builds. If they come with no source code even though they modified the GPL parts, they may not even be legal (not Wikipedia's place to determine that I guess, but I'm just suggesting it may be the case), and I don't think dubious things like that should be included.

So one easy criterion could be "has source code published", though I'm not saying we should go and make sure the license of every single piece of GPL code is respected. But no github, no party.

In the old list, most distributions linked to an official website (which has some, albeit limited, value on Wikipedia per the policy on official external links), and I think that's once again more valid than ones that simply have a forum thread on XDA. It should have a properly registered website to be included here.

This is what I'd start with at least. Do you have objections to these two criteria? LjL (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you propose that this list should only include custom Android firmware that is open-source and has an official website? I presume that the list would then have to be renamed as "List of open-source custom Android firmware" or something similar. I am hesitant about limiting this to only open-source distributions, because there is at least one notable custom Android firmware distribution that would be left out because it is proprietary.

How do you propose fighting the inappropriate addition of links with the purpose of promoting an open-source custom Android firmware distribution? The problem is that anyone can create a personal website and a GitHub page and distribute open-source custom Android firmware. I think the firmware would have to be mentioned at least once in a reliable third-party published source in order to not give someone's project attention that it hasn't already received elsewhere – i.e. representation should be proportional to prominence. That is automatically the case when the entries are required to have an associated Wikipedia article first. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Only some parts of Androids are supposed to be released as open source (the parts under the GPL, mainly; other parts are often under Apache2). So distributions are free to only be partly open source, but they can't be completely closed source: that would be illegal. LjL (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedia articles failing the notability criteria. Sure, they will be deleted eventually, but they may not be for a while, and at the same time, there can be notable things without an article for quite a while: you're trying to make inclusion in this list indirectly dependent on notability (by strictly requiring the existence of an article) instead of just requiring the thing itself, notability by means of being mentioned by appropriate sources.

Additionally, I think the criterion doesn't need to include a published source for a list such as this, and a review on an Android-related website recognized as notable (for instance, and you can support that with the existence of a WP article for it) should be quite enough. Surely you don't expect many books to have been written on the topic of aftermarket Android firmware (yet). LjL (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to limit this list to only open-source software – at least not as long as there are "proprietary" custom Android firmware distributions to be listed and they don't have their own list. If we ignore that for now, the opening sentence could then be something like this: "This is a list of aftermarket distributions (custom firmware, custom ROM) of the Android operating system that either have Wikipedia articles or have received independent coverage in notable Android-related sources." That sounds OK to me. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I wasn't trying to restrict the list to open-source distributions per se, but to legal distributions. "Distributions" (or, more likely, XDA hacked-together builds) that are in breach of the GPL are not just "proprietary", they are illegal.

That said, having "that either have Wikipedia articles" in the lede is a technicality that may interests us as editors but should not interest the reader. If they have Wikipedia articles, then they (should) have received independent coverage in notable Android-related sources, so please let's specify just that. LjL (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A better opening sentence would then be: "This is a list of aftermarket distributions (custom firmware, custom ROM) of the Android operating system that have received independent coverage in notable Android-related sources." It is true that, if this were the opening sentence, someone could potentially want to add an illegal distribution to the list and it would be a valid entry if it has received the required coverage. In that case, we should probably refrain from adding a separate column for "official websites". --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now gone ahead and made the appropriate changes to reflect the current consensus concerning the inclusion criteria. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I was summoned here by Legobot, and I have faced similar questions at List of unofficial observances by date. I think Dodi's solution is reasonable: if the distro has its own article we can presume that it's notable. If it doesn't, the entry here needs to have references to reliable sources that show that it's notable to some extent. Questions about whether the distro is in breach of the GPL are irrelevant to the issue of notability, but to stick to the topic as defined by the article's title it's definitely reasonable to exclude mods of OEM builds. --Slashme (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

License

For nuance: Shouldn't we replace the "Open Source" (Y/N) column with something like "license" (and then specify in the column what license the mod is issued under)? FrenchieAlexandre (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Most projects have more than one license (all have GPL for the Linux kernel and Apache License for the AOSP parts). Replicant is the only one on the list that really is 100% Free Software (open source), all the others ship with proprietary device drivers. I think it would be best to remove the column. Sotral14 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Column removed. ⸺RandomStaplers (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As you know there are Custom Firmwares which are community built and are published on XDA which by their policy requires them to be GPL complaint, as opposed to Manufacturer made firmwares on this list such as EMUI, MiUI, Realme UI, amongst others which are strictly closed source and proprietary and do not release their builds on platforms like XDA. Hence requesting the removal of the column (open source - Y/N) to be immediately reversed, or if possible, modified to suggest if the entry is a community build or a manufacturer build, (or backed by an organisation)

Regards —— Shivansu M (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best to have a column summary of overall license status, because some are significantly more restrictive and some are more free. True, Replicant may be the only fully free software ROM, but even it has a non-official option of installing proprietary drivers as add-on. Some ROMs have proprietary licenses. This list can serve a useful purpose of informing readers whether the project is forkable, for example, or whether they should spend time looking for sources for any software developed by the team or company behind a ROM. License details can be found in ROM articles. Complexity of multiple licenses still allows wikipedia to have Portal:Free_and_open-source_software, and some ROM articles are tagged with that. [Comparison_of_Linux_distributions]] has a System distribution commitment column, which is different, but serves similar purpose. List_of_Linux_distributions does not use a column, but it includes text summarizing license categories. I was OK with the status quo, but a note or key could also be added for some explanation. Going in a different direction of categorizing, similar to List_of_Linux_distributions is another option. Simply deleting the information makes this table less useful. The Last update, latest release or supported devices columns are more likely to fall out-of-date, and I would delete those before the license column. Therefore, I am restoring the deleted info'. -- Yae4 (talk)

I'll leave it up for now, but because the Apache license doesn't cover derivative works (save for the copyright and license notice), and being it is a permissive license, it's kind of hard to tell whether a project fits into the Free software definition/DFSG/Open source definition (you may not be able to sell derivative software), which is why some may prefer to not... possibility mislead people legally with this column. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want someone in hot water because of a Wikipedia article. ⸺RandomStaplers (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the color templates based on what I said above. I think this is a good compromise, but feel free to revert certain parts if you have any objections. ⸺RandomStaplers (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we include EMUI in this list?

I mean, "The list does not include distributions that come preinstalled on a device (stock ROM) or modifications of them."

Sure, I can let Oxygen OS and MIUI slide due to the number of its unprecedented ports. But EMUI's not commonly found on other non-Huawei or Honor devices, let alone ports of it. If EMUI's included, we should've included other UX/UIs as well such as Color OS or Samsung's One UI. Jovic77 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Last three cited (EMUI, Color OS, One UI) are not custom Android distributions. They are (citing) "custom user interface" developed by mobile manufacturers. Lots of manufacturers do this, not only notable ones cited before. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently it says "may include": "The list may include distributions that come preinstalled on a device (stock ROM) or modifications of them. Only official builds are listed." For ColorOS, wiki article calls it a "mobile operating system", and xda-developers calls it a custom ROM. Seems like enough to be listed. One UI and EMUI are described as overlay or custom interface, but they also come as part of custom ROMs too. I favor including these custom distributions. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Every, I mean every manufacturer can, could and is doing costum user interfaces to sell it to the client. What is it? Just esthetics and brand. I think cannot be considered a standalone "distribution". Everyone could update custom icons for default applications and rebranding it as a custom android? If we proceeed, sood sense says that step by step we'r gong to include every single android manufacturer in this world. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. It will stay much shorter than List_of_Android_smartphones. Yae4 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Broken Links

Footnotes 5 and 6 currently contain broken links, eg: "marisoldroid.com’s server IP address could not be found." RichMorin (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Year started

Special:Diff/1012206009

@Yae4: CalyxOS started earlier than 2019. An arbitrary release from 2019 isn't the start of it. From https://www.golem.de/news/calyxos-im-test-ein-komfortables-android-mit-einer-extraportion-privacy-2010-151555.html: "Das Projekt gibt es schon seit rund dreieinhalb Jahren." (The project has been around for around three and a half years.)

[...] Graphene start year - Golem.de, "In April 2019, Micay announced GrapheneOS as the true successor of Copperhead OS, which would functionally inherit it." Article lead summarizes this too.

Neither indicate that it started in 2019. An announcement of a rename isn't the start of it. Resonantia (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Resonantia: It depends on the definition of "started" for a "custom android distribution." Version 1 release? First alpha release? When a developer wrote their first concept notes and began some work? First private test with that name? That golem.de review is a good one! At start of the same paragraph you quoted, it says, "Ein Baustein ist dabei CalyxOS, das Anfang September in Version 1.0 erschienen ist." (One building block here is CalyxOS, version 1.0 of which was released at the beginning of September.) which supports 2020 as "started" if using version 1 release.

Graphene - When do you think "GrapheneOS distribution started"? -- Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Yae4: The point is that the year it started ("Year started") and the year it was initially released ("Initial release year") are clearly two different things. Comparison of Linux distributions is an example of a table with a column named "Initial release year".

Sure, golem.de can be used to support "2020" as the year version 1.0 was released, but to me the current column of this table refers to the year the distribution started. Also, https://www.reddit.com/r/CalyxOS/comments/kit6ri/comment/ggui441 explicitly states "The project started around 2016 but we didn't try to publicize it."

There isn't a secondary source explicitly saying that Graphene started in 2019, and since it doesn't match what their site says either, I'd rather remove the date. Resonantia (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Resonantia: GrapheneOS indicates GrapheneOS started in 2019 when it was re-named from Android Hardening. Prior to that Micay worked on CopperheadOS. This is consistent with the primary source history here: https://grapheneos.org/releases#changelog which shows "GrapheneOS" releases beginning in 2019. The Golem.de secondary source, as you quoted, says "GrapheneOS" was announced, as the successor, by Micay in 2019. These things point to 2019 as the start of GrapheneOS. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

should this include postmarketOS and droidian?

postmarketOS and droidian are projects to run alpine and debian respectively on android devices. droidian makes use of the halium to boot on a large variety of GSI devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhimaros (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive my unworthy edits

I decided this would be my first attempt to try an edit. I made a flaming hot pile of n00b pie. I've undid my edits and will definitely practice up (not on mobile!) before bringing shame upon myself again. Please forgive. Lesson learned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asavvypirate (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

open source OS with proprietary apps.

Some of these OSs offer the option to include proprietary apps. GrapheneOS includes the play store, iodeOS and /e/OS include Magic Earth. For the sake of consistency, I have relabeled these as Open Source, since we are talking about the OS, not optional bundled apps. Brinerustle (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)