Slashdot Mirror
The Android SDK Is No Longer Free Software
New submitter tian2992 writes "The new terms for the Android SDK now include phrases such as 'you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK' among other non-Free-software-friendly terms, as noted by FSF Europe's Torsten Grote. Replicant, a free fork of Android, announced the release of Replicant SDK 4.0 based on the latest sources of the Android SDK without the new terms."
There's very little point in Google closing Android, but the biggest reason for them not to is that it would create significant motivation for a group to fork the last open version. That fork would at the very least cause confusion that would hurt Android in the near term, and might even overshadow Google's version and become the standard, resulting in a loss of Google control.
On that note, the chances of Ubuntu Mobile suddenly becoming popular on the back of this, or on the back of some hypothetical closing of Android 4.3, is about zero. People upset about Android being hurt are likely people who want Android open. Their first thought would be "How can we regain our freedoms in Android", not "Oh well, let's just give up and switch to something else that's untested and unproven and doesn't work the way we're used to."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
[...] Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: [...] (b)load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
Hmm, seems like they are targeting on-device development with apps like AIDE.
Some people do, some don't.
I for instance only buy unlocked bootloader devices with FREE operating systems. This is why I currently have a Galaxy Nexus.
It impacts people who care about principle the software they use is based upon.
Freedom is not (just) a matter of principle. The reason that people take your freedom away from you is because they want, later at their option, to be able to take other things from you that would naturally be yours. Microsoft locks people into proprietary licenses because they know that, after a few years of using the OS they buy from them you will need a new computer and a new system, either because your old one broke or because an associate wants to do the same things as you do already. Normally, if you were allowed your natural right to copy things you own, you would just be able to copy the old one and that would work fine. By taking away that freedom, Microsoft is able to take away your money from you again later for nothing more than you could easily have done yourself if they didn't interfere with your copying.
Google's aim here is to make life difficult for competitors such as Amazon and the Chinese Android clone makers (not that these will care). This allows them to interfere with the free market for their own benefit. For programmers reading Slashdot, that means that, instead of being four or more potential developers of mobile software you can work for, Amazon, Google, Apple and the Chinese, there may well only be two: Apple and Google. With the possible exception of Jolla and Ubuntu, there is almost nobody else in the market who could consider competing. For people buying mobile phones would mean that, instead of having widespread choice from different vendors, everything would go through Google or Apple.
This is one of the key reasons why licenses such as the AGPLv3 as well as free software foundations which can provide a neutral holder for coyprights are so important. Look at how FreeBSD development has been absorbed by Apple even though it was supposedly "Open Source". Without strong copyleft licenses the only choice will be which set of chains you wear. Once you are wearing those chains the only choice will be to give the mobile vendors what they want to take.
This work on Replicant is crucial and hopefully companies like Amazon which could gain from it will understand that and come out and support the project. Anyone who can contribute Android code should be working for the goals of Replicant wherever possible. Also you want to make sure that your code goes in to a neutral party under the AGPLv3 to make sure that you yourself will be able to get the benefit from it later.
BTW, isn't it funny the way all the "don't be evil" trolls suddenly shut up when we have an actual example of Google doing something not nice?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
No, it depends on others' definition of evil.
Which is why the whole premise is fundamentally flawed.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
No, this was quite a lottle bit evil. As were all the various anticompetitive practices they've been into recently. Many of those have even been directly trying to bring down open source competition, like deliberately polluting OpenStreetMap's data.
Things done "in the Church's name" are not things "done by the Church". People misuse religion and other belief systems all the time. How about politicians who do things "in the name of the people" when they are really just serving a few buddies? Same thing. Stalin killed in the "name of the people" and to "advance socialism". Do you believe he was sincere? Is socialism really about mass murder? (Hint: no.) BTW, which "Church" are they talking about? There are many. None of the Christian churches or all of them together directed the deaths of millions of people. Sure some thousands were burned at the stake or tortured during various inquisitions and pograms, but those were really for the benefit of various secular rulers. I can't think of any other religions guilty of millions of deaths either.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Thanks for an unexpectedly civil response, a rarity on slashdot and the internet in general in a day when it is hip to be acerbic.
I would also have you consider whether it is fair to blame "the church" for things that self-proclaimed "christians" do. There is a lot of ambiguity over the terms "the church" and "christian", and it goes without saying that as admittedly sinful people, christians too can commit wrongs. "The church" gets a lot of flack as this long-standing monolith of vice, when it has undergone a lot of splits, dissolutions, and reformations over the years; I myself am a "baptist" and would not subscribe to what is generally meant by "the church" (Roman catholocism). I have also committed my share of wrongs, but dont think it would be fair to ascribe them to "baptists" when most baptists would acknowledge them as wrongs.
Just food for thought.