The Android SDK Is No Longer Free Software

But Android is open by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Right?

Re:But Android is open by beelsebob · 2013-01-04 02:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

So much for "don't be evil" ;)
Re:But Android is open by neokushan · 2013-01-04 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm pretty sure that depends on your definition of "Evil".

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:But Android is open by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-01-04 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do I have to pay to use it to build apps? Free as in beer. Most people aren't looking to extract the ethanol to put in their windshield wipers.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:But Android is open by NatasRevol · 2013-01-04 02:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

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
Re:But Android is open by beelsebob · 2013-01-04 03:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:But Android is open by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

So much for "don't be evil" ;)
Who ever REALLY believed that?
Come on. Google is an ad agency. They sell things. Their business model is selling your privacy. But first they have to sell themselves. Sheesh. And "Don't be evil" is a huge marketing ploy to sell themselves.
That doesn't make them evil, any more than any other huge multinational corporation is or isn't evil.
Just don't buy their self-marketing hook, line, and sinker.
Look at it this way: if they were called "Exxon", would you believe it? But because they're called "Google", you do?
Re:But Android is open by WilyCoder · 2013-01-04 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Four legs good, two legs bad
Re:But Android is open by codewarren · 2013-01-04 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative

The summary is completely wrong.

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
Here's what it said in April 10, 2009

3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not 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. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not 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.
Here's what it says now:

3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, 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; or (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.
Re:But Android is open by Marc+Madness · 2013-01-04 04:45 · Score: 5, Funny

That statement is only valid for large values of "evil".
Re:But Android is open by tangent3 · 2013-01-04 05:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Android is still open.
The Android SDK has never been open.
Or did you not know the difference between an OS and an SDK?
Re:But Android is open by Flipao · 2013-01-04 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
They're just so evil, I mean can you imagine how much better things would be if that stupid Android hadn't showed up?, we'd all be using phones made by Apple or running Windows, now those are companies you want to support, who on earth would want an Open Source OS to be relevant in a consumer market for once, that's preposterous.

And the OpenStreetMap data, it's so clear that this goes to the highest levels of the company.... oh wait.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/17/2714044/google-contractors-sacked-vandalism-openstreetmap

Sometimes it pays off to have some fucking perspective, here's an obnoxious smiley face right back atcha *:)*
Re:But Android is open by oxdas · 2013-01-04 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem I see in this case is that the founders are still completely in control of the company. Brin and Page control over 50% of the voting stock in Google thanks to their B shares being worth 10 times the vote of an A share. The Google founders don't have to listen to the stockholders at all and there is little the stockholders can do to change that.
Re:But Android is open by drinkmoreyuengling · 2013-01-04 06:15 · Score: 2

Judging by your comment history, your having some "fucking perspective" applies uniquely to the companies that you like (or work for?). Your Nokia/Microsoft comment from Dec 5 is particularly rich in this light. Glass houses
Re:But Android is open by suy · 2013-01-04 06:28 · Score: 3, Funny

They're just so evil, I mean can you imagine how much better things would be if that stupid Android hadn't showed up?, we'd all be using phones made by Apple or running Windows,
If you remove Android from the equation, its share doesn't magically moves to Apple and Microsoft. Nokia was there with Symbian, you know? And they had an acceptable level of openness with it (I can't pass a link know because the symbian foundation blog is down, but they were moving to a fully open toolchain based on GNU tools). Plus, they were betting on more open systems like Maemo/MeeGo.
Of course, companies will eventually move to more open systems. Yes, more open than Android. Do you think that a giant like Samsung likes their phones to shout "Google" all over the place? Specially with the store, now that is not "Android", a neutral brand, but "Google Play" instead. They are working on Tizen, and probably will either branch from Android or use more systems (be it Mozilla's, Canonical's, etc.).
Re:But Android is open by MachineShedFred · 2013-01-04 07:40 · Score: 2

So because they produced Android, they get a free pass on doing assholish things? Why do I have a feeling that you're the type of person to use the label "fanboy" when replying to someone else who's equivocating as much as you are?
An asshole is an asshole, no matter what came before.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:But Android is open by buybuydandavis · 2013-01-04 08:51 · Score: 2

Two guys with a real stake and real knowledge are in control - sounds like a good thing to me.
Re:But Android is open by speederaser · 2013-01-04 08:54 · Score: 2

"[Google] deliberately polluting OpenStreetMap's data"
See here for more on this:
http://opengeodata.org/google-ip-vandalizing-openstreetmap
Re:But Android is open by VortexCortex · 2013-01-04 09:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Four legs good, two legs bad
All Hail the Eight Legged Master Race!
Protip: Your eyeballs are inside out, unlike a superior cephalopod's, your eyes have veins running across the TOP of your retina, and thus have blind spots... Humans have back problems due to having erect spines that were never meant for that orientation, and nerves running under their feet! Your intelligent designer was a MORON! Long Live C'thulhu!
Re:But Android is open by demachina · 2013-01-04 09:42 · Score: 3, Informative

I think Paul Bucheit probably meant it when he coined the phrase, and I doubt it was marketing BS back then. But Paul is long gone from Google and its not the same company it was back then.

--
@de_machina

come on! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

it is still more open than the iOS SDK, Blackberry and WP

Re:come on! by thetoadwarrior · 2013-01-04 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hitler was ok, he didn't kill as many people as Stalin.
Re:come on! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:52 · Score: 5, Funny

The church was ok, it didn't kill as many as ...
Oh fuck.
Re:come on! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:09 · Score: 5, Funny

OH fuck was ok, it didn't kill as many as "Hey guys! Watch this!"
Re:come on! by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-04 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The church killed merely thousands? I've heard that claim before. It doesn't seem substantial to me. Do those low numbers include young women all through the first two millenia who were victimized by circumstances like the Salem witch hangings? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live among you."
I strongly suspect that more than mere thousands were put to death in the Church's name. The native populations in North America didn't fare to well, at the church's hands. Smallpox blankets sent to reservations, for instance. Good "Christian" men taking advantage of the "savages" in thousands of different ways, like selling grain alcohol to the "ignorant savages".
But, go ahead, whitewash the numbers. The winners do get to write history, from what I'm told.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:come on! by CanHasDIY · 2013-01-04 03:42 · Score: 3, Funny

OH fuck was ok, it didn't kill as many as "Hold my beer and watch this!"
Fixed for we Midwestern folk.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:come on! by Old97 · 2013-01-04 03:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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
Re:come on! by Lord+Pillage · 2013-01-04 04:04 · Score: 3, Informative

*Cough* Crusades *Cough*

--
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
Re:come on! by LordLimecat · 2013-01-04 04:42 · Score: 2

I would be astonished if you could get the numbers from witch trials and the inquisition anywhere near what stalin did.

The native populations in North America didn't fare to well, at the church's hands. Smallpox blankets sent to reservations, for instance
How, exactly, are you blaming that on "the church"?
Re:come on! by LordLimecat · 2013-01-04 04:44 · Score: 2

The crusades-- a series of armed conflicts spanning 200 years-- has a wikipedia death toll of 1.5 million from both sides. Comparing that with Stalin or Hitler is a little bit ignorant.
Re:come on! by miltonw · 2013-01-04 04:46 · Score: 2

No. You seem to be under the impression that Google's Android SDK was written by someone else who licensed it under the GPL. Yes, that would be a violation, but that isn't the situation. This is a Google product.
Re:come on! by LordLimecat · 2013-01-04 05:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Citation needed. Heres the straight dope on it:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox
Basically, 2 military officers briefly discussed the idea in letters. Noone knows if they actually went through with it. I am not aware of their particular religious views, but certainly this was discussed in the context of a military conflict.
The claim you are making is absolutely absurd: no source, no proof, and an acknowledgement that no historian can confirm it-- but YOU have the inside scoop!

The church taught these good boys and girls in Sunday School how they should conduct themselves, and how they should view the world. Generations of Christians grew up believing that black, brown, and red men were "differetn",
This is also ignorant. Many people taught that, and christians like all people are influenced by the times they live in. Fact is a lot of the early abolotionists were christians, and views like the ones you mentioned were not unusual.

The beliefs that made it possible for good Christians to send small pox blankets to reservations.
Which, again, we have no proof ever happened, and no reason to think if it did it was civilians doing it.
Re:come on! by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-01-04 06:09 · Score: 2

*Cough* Crusades *Cough*
I'd be more worried by the deaths due to their rather odd stance on contraception. I think it's a miracle, if you pardon the pun, that Ratzinger even went so far as to offer a very tentative acceptance of condoms where AIDS is a risk, but still it's obviously a sin to deny the natural order of things - says a man who jets around the world and enjoys the benefits of advanced medical care.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:come on! by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-04 06:23 · Score: 2

Alright - I'm reading your link, and googling around for more on the subject. Either I'm a victim of mythology and legend, or we see revisionist history here. I'm thinking.
Points for your side - I ran with a half-Apache for quite some time, who taught me an awful lot about life. This old guy never mentioned any small pox blankets, in all the time I knew him. Of course, I never asked him about the stories, either. If the old goat were still alive, I'd make it a point to drive up to his place, and ask him.
I'll concede that you have documentation for your side of this story, and I lack any. I'm still not convinced yet, though. When I have more time, I'll do some more research. Could be, all those stories really are bullshit.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:come on! by LordLimecat · 2013-01-04 07:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:come on! by MachineShedFred · 2013-01-04 07:45 · Score: 3, Funny

Remember, the world's death rate stays steady at 100%.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:come on! by cheesybagel · 2013-01-04 08:31 · Score: 2

The Crusades were a backlash against Muslim invasion. If we took it under the present UN charter they could have been considered a defensive war like Korea or the first Gulf War. Attrocities were commited on both sides.
Re:come on! by benjfowler · 2013-01-04 08:42 · Score: 2

The Muslims killed and enslaved their fair share too.
The difference between Islam and Christianity now, is that Christians grew out of it, but Muslims never did.

Ubuntu Mobile ... by Pieroxy · 2013-01-04 01:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

All of a sudden a new market opens for Ubuntu Mobile ;-)

Seriously, does that impact anyone? The thing is available for free anyway...

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by iakoad · 2013-01-04 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

It impacts people who care about principle the software they use is based upon.
It also might influence (in part because of the above) future developments in Andriod. Of course, I doubt it will make a large enough difference to matter to most people.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-01-04 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

All of a sudden a new market opens for Ubuntu Mobile ;-)
Seriously, does that impact anyone? The thing is available for free anyway...
Just because it is free today does not mean it will be tomorrow. The fact that Google changed the SDK from being free as in beer to non-free is indicative that they could just as easily change it from also being not free as in paying a fee. Think of it like Walmart moving into a new market -- they heavily undersell the competition until there is little competition left. Then the selection goes down and the prices go up. What is to stop Google from doing the same thing and if they did, where would people go?
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they did that Android would be forked. People who cared would move to the fork or Ubuntu for Phones or many other currently fringe options. Hell, it might inspire Samsung to make Tizen based superphones.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Dot.Com.CEO · 2013-01-04 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one would give a shit. People buy phones because they like the software / hardware or they trust the brand. They don't care if it's "open" or "free".

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by sl4shd0rk · 2013-01-04 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, does that impact anyone?

Certainly. Google is just getting around to reducing the fragmentation in the OS levels on the myriad of devices out there, and now there is going to be a proprietary (Google) SDK as well as a fully open (Replicant) SDK. This isn't exactly going to help thin the fragmentation herd.
Besides, Google has always prided itself in the fact that Android is open source. The new wording doesn't quite seem to hold the same theme as Andy Rubin's snarky twitter entry: "the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
I like Android. I prefer it over the proprietary shut-up-take-my-money alternative but this is a stupid move by Google to try and keep Ubuntu/HTC/Samsung from gutting Android and creating a competing product.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 02:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by rtfa-troll · 2013-01-04 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

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();
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Dot.Com.CEO · 2013-01-04 03:00 · Score: 2

The vast majority of people do not give a shit whether their "bootloader" is "unlocked". They want something that works and they don't even know or care about even rooting the phone.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by fredprado · 2013-01-04 03:08 · Score: 2

Until they are shown the advantages of the unlocked device. Ignorance can be cured, and unlike what you may think the vast majority of people do want to have more for less.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Dot.Com.CEO · 2013-01-04 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Man, people want to buy a god damn phone, and they'll buy one they like. They don't care or want to care about "open bootloaders" because for the vast majority of people it gives them ZERO advantage. They don't want to load up the latest CM10.1_KANG_super_duper_deodexed_perfect_nobuggs_OC1500 ROM, they want their phones to look pretty, ring when they're supposed to and that's it. You think you can "educate" people, best of luck to you, but you just want to interest people to something they do not want to care about, full stop. For what it's worth, I too own and love my GNexus. It's not a phone for everyone.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by samkass · 2013-01-04 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, does that impact anyone?
Certainly. Google is just getting around to reducing the fragmentation in the OS levels on the myriad of devices out there, and now there is going to be a proprietary (Google) SDK as well as a fully open (Replicant) SDK. This isn't exactly going to help thin the fragmentation herd.
Besides, Google has always prided itself in the fact that Android is open source. The new wording doesn't quite seem to hold the same theme as Andy Rubin's snarky twitter entry: "the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
I like Android. I prefer it over the proprietary shut-up-take-my-money alternative but this is a stupid move by Google to try and keep Ubuntu/HTC/Samsung from gutting Android and creating a competing product.
It's funny, when Apple released WebKit under that identical definition of "open", there was screaming from all corners until they opened up the whole process as well. Until you can download nightlies of Android and see the current bug list, it's not "open" source, it's "source available". Development is all in secret and you need to sign away all your rights to get anything before it's shipped to users, meaning that while the license is technically open you can't actually use that freedom effectively. Yes, it's more "open" than iOS, but that's not saying much.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its still free as in beer.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 03:39 · Score: 2

Which matters not one bit, so long as you and me can still get a Nexus or an N900 or an Ubuntu Phone.
There is no need for us to use the same devices as the masses. I don't drink bud light, I don't run windows on my PC and I sure as hell do not need to worry about what the masses want in a smartphone.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Sulphur · 2013-01-04 03:40 · Score: 3, Funny

The Kindle is amazon's fork of android.
I am sure google would rather have them on vanilla android.
Is vanilla a flavor of Ice Cream Sandwich?
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by dgatwood · 2013-01-04 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
You are allowed to transfer your license as long as you wipe it from the old machine first. That doesn't mean an old OS will actually work usably on new computers, though. In fact, the odds are against it even being able to boot if the OS is more than a few years old.

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.
AGPLv3 (Affero GPL v3) is an abomination. It requires that if I make changes to your software and use them on any public-facing website, I have to make my private changes available. So now you know my database schema and other information that by any legitimate security standards should be kept private. Because it violates the spirit of the GPL by forcing you to accept a license for mere use, rather than for distribution, the AGPL is the only software license that is so completely unfree that I will not use it under any circumstances whatsoever. I consider it to be worse than commercial licenses in this regard, because at least they don't pretend to be free.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Kludge · 2013-01-04 03:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

No one would give a shit. People buy phones because they like the software / hardware or they trust the brand. They don't care if it's "open" or "free".

Posts like this are really starting to annoy me.
Actually some people do care. They're called people who read slashdot. And the people who read slashdot don't really give a shit that 99% of the population does not give a shit. Do you know why? Because we are smarter, more educated and have longer attention spans. Our last 30 years of software experience has taught us that over time open licenses do matter, they do make a difference in the power we have over our own computing devices. Would Android even exist without the open license Torvalds gave Linux? No. You would be stuck choosing between a locked-down Apple phone or a locked-down "Windows" phone. It is because of slashdot-type people that the other 99% have much more choice. You are welcome, you ungrateful asshole.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by Dot.Com.CEO · 2013-01-04 04:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

You know what? Just because you, I and a hundred other nerds do care does not mean that the millions who buy fucking phones from their operator do, and no matter of sanctimonious whining on slashdot by you will change that.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by daboochmeister · 2013-01-04 04:12 · Score: 2

You are allowed to transfer your license as long as you wipe it from the old machine first.
That's patently untrue of the Windows OEM license that is used by the vast majority of consumer PCs. If you buy a PC with Windows pre-installed, the license for that copy of Windows only extends to that specific PC.

Are you trying to say something else?

--
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 04:22 · Score: 2

I am agreeing with you, but pointing out your argument is pointless. You do not have to do what the majority does.
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by jeremyp · 2013-01-04 04:28 · Score: 2

If you purchased your computer with a copy of Windows already on it, almost certainly, the licence is tied to that machine (legally, if not technically).
If you purchase a copy of Windows separately in the shops, you can transfer it, but also, it is much more expensive than the nominal cost of the OEM licence.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by miltonw · 2013-01-04 04:56 · Score: 2

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?
BTW, isn't it funny that "something not nice" to competitors equals "Oh, noes! Google is evil!"
Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by mellon · 2013-01-04 05:02 · Score: 2

This is true in principle, but not in practice. The more times you install a particular windows license, the more of a pain in the ass Microsoft makes it for you, on the theory that you are probably pirating it, not just installing it serially on new machines and wiping it from the old ones.

Does this surprise anyone? by under_score · 2013-01-04 01:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Google has long been willing to compromise on their "do no evil" mantra and is probably under huge pressure from successful incumbent phone device manufacturers to create barriers to entry in the market. This is common with any market where goods or services start to become commoditized.

--
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.

Re:Does this surprise anyone? by quippe · 2013-01-04 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I cannot see how restricting the license terms of the SDK could impose barriers to competing manufacturers; it could probably create a barrier for derived works.
However, it is an evil thing.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Uh, what?
This is the SDK we're talking about. How does closing the SDK, but still distributing it for free to anyone who wants a copy, create a barrier to entry in any market phone manufacturers care about? Do you really think Samsung is saying "OMG! If someone forks the SDK and produces a slightly better development environment for Android phones, WE'LL BE RUINED! RUINED I tell you!"?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by whisper_jeff · 2013-01-04 02:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok, I'm not entirely the biggest Google fan but:

Google has long been willing to compromise on their "do no evil" mantra...
Evil?? Are you claiming this change to their terms of use is evil??
Wow. That word has literally lost all meaning, hasn't it...
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by HeckRuler · 2013-01-04 02:38 · Score: 2

Also it's "don't be evil". You're thinking of the three monkeys.
This is the weirdest persistent mistake.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by gutnor · 2013-01-04 03:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well that means that if you make an Android derivative, you cannot simply adapt the SDK for it. Indeed in practice, it should not be a problem, however it is still a worrying development. If you intent your platform to be really open, what is the point of tightening control on the SDK ?
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by codewarren · 2013-01-04 04:36 · Score: 2

It hasn't been tightened, the summary is wrong. The following, which the summary says is new:

3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not 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
Is an exact quote from APRIL 2009. The new terms didn't change this.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by Belial6 · 2013-01-04 05:28 · Score: 2

It should be noted that their motto was "don't be evil" not "do no evil". They are two differen things. One is possible, the other is not.

It's a little worse than summary... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-01-04 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't know why the summary concentrated on the copy provisions. Here is the complete clause #3.2. Emphasis is mine:

3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, 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; or (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.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

Re:It's a little worse than summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

[...] 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.
Re:It's a little worse than summary... by KiloByte · 2013-01-04 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer
My N900 is for all purposes a personal computer.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:It's a little worse than summary... by codewarren · 2013-01-04 04:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Indeed, here is the version from April 2009.

3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not 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. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not 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.
They added no such restrictions, they've always been there. The summary is wrong.

The change is to prevent further fragmentation by GrumpySteen · 2013-01-04 02:11 · Score: 4, Informative

The Android platform has some fragmentation problems and there's been endless bitching about them on Slashdot. This change is part of a number of changes made to limit the problem. The section following the summary's quote spells it out:

"3.4 You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android, including but not limited to distributing, participating in the creation of, or promoting in any way a software development kit derived from the SDK."

tl;dr - you got what you asked for.

Re:The change is to prevent further fragmentation by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-01-04 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Android platform has some fragmentation problems and there's been endless bitching about them on Slashdot.
Bullocks. Google could just use their trademark to enforce compliance, you know like OpenJDK does. They could simply only grant the right to use "Android" on distributions certified to be compliant.
Besides the fragmentation that people were complaining about were cause by Google themselves.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:The change is to prevent further fragmentation by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 02:26 · Score: 3, Informative

The fragmentation is more the carriers fault than Googles.
Updates don't make it out so that users have to buy new devices to get updates. Google should force the OHA members hands on this. If you want access to market and the android trademarks you must supply updates to devices for X years.
Re:The change is to prevent further fragmentation by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 02:33 · Score: 2

Why would they use the SDK?
They can just grab AOSP and go from there.
Moving to MS would be far more expensive for Amazon and give them far less freedom. They would not have a Kindle, just another Windows tablet.
Re:The change is to prevent further fragmentation by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 02:42 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't offer an open source tablet operating system, so no.
Amazon's use of the SDK is also perfectly legitimate under this license, assuming they're using it at all. The Fire OS is essentially bare Android with a custom launcher. It doesn't include GApps, but GApps are not part of Android, at least, from the point of view of the SDK. They haven't forked the API, and anything developed for the Fire will work on other Android systems 2.3 and better unless you explicitly do version checks.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:The change is to prevent further fragmentation by nitehawk214 · 2013-01-04 02:48 · Score: 2

"3.4 You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android, including but not limited to distributing, participating in the creation of, or promoting in any way a software development kit derived from the SDK."
That could mean anything. By commenting on how this is an evil bait-and-switch by Google I could be encouraging people to fork Android and cause fragmentation. Does this mean Google can take away my ability to develop software for Android and pull any apps I have created from the store? Is this some sort of back-door clause so they can do the Apple thing and pull any app for any made-up reason with this?

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

bad sign by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

This looks like it only covers the SDK for now. We will see if this happens to android as a whole.

I was initially not sure if anyone would use Ubuntu on their phone. Now I am looking forward to the images for nexus devices in the next few weeks.

Re:Practical Implications? by queazocotal · 2013-01-04 02:16 · Score: 2

Combining the above term with others - such as '3.4 You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android, including but not limited to distributing, participating in the creation of, or promoting in any way a software development kit derived from the SDK.'

Could for example be used to say that no, CyanogenMod, or any other 'distribution' - that is not an exact vanilla build is 'fragmentation' - and hence is not a permitted use.

Re:take that Apple by alen · 2013-01-04 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

samsung probably copied a few of apple's design patents, but you can't patent the concept of a touch screen device. apple never made touch screens and samsung had real touch screen phones in testing before the iphone was released. along with others.

the iphone's strength was that it had a real almost desktop class OS. LG Prada had the crappy Qualcomm Brew. If LG shipped an android phone in late 2006 then it would have been a totally different story. Android as an OS was close to ready in 2006 it just that the GUI was made for blackberry type phones

Re:Practical Implications? by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 02:21 · Score: 2

Very little.

From what I can tell, the nearest thing there'll be to real world consequences is that when Google releases a new version of the OS, people will have to wait until the corresponding AOSP release comes out before trying it out on their hardware. Previously, as soon as the SDK had a new version of Android available, you'd get a lot of (usually bad) ports of it to various phones and tablets. A significant example was Honeycomb, which wasn't put in the AOSP repository until the release of ICS (and the "AOSP" version is still hard to obtain as the versions of each file that make it up are not clearly tagged) which was, nonetheless, ported to a series of tablets by using the SDK version.

It's unfortunate, I don't know why Google is taking this action, but it remains the case that Android itself is FOSS, and I guess I'm not going to start demanding my torch be lit or my pitchfork be sharpened until I see evidence Google plans to change that; of course, even if Google was the secretly evil organization its detractors keep claiming, and planned to do that, it's hard to see how closing Android would do anything other than result in a serious, first class, fork that really would threaten "official" Android for years to come, so I seriously doubt they'll ever do that.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Alternatives. by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 02:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Android is FLOSS, the SDK is not.

Re:Practical Implications? by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 02:26 · Score: 5, Informative

CyanogenMod is not an SDK. It's an Android distribution. It is not in any way affected by the changes to the SDK licensing terms.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Alternatives. by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2013-01-04 02:36 · Score: 2

So if I understand correctly Android (which is based on linux) remains FLOSS, it is just a development tool that has "become" close sourced?
If that is correct, then why not go on with the latest version and update that with the community? As it is not used, then this scheme falls into shambles right?
Also, am I the only one who thinks this is against the whole principle of FOSS? This looks like they used linux because of cheap and now make things closed source because of make $...

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...

Re:Practical Implications? by queazocotal · 2013-01-04 02:41 · Score: 2

"You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement", "You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android".

If they say any specific use of the SDK is fragmentation, then you have real problems arguing it's not.
The argument that CM is fragmentation is not clearly ridiculous.

This being the case, you are in real trouble arguing otherwise, especially as they have considerably larger lawyers than you.

Re:Practical Implications? by synapse7 · 2013-01-04 02:43 · Score: 2

Well, the TaC is dated Nov 13th and there is a crazy amount of custom rom dev work going on, so I'm going say not much.

Economies of scale not in favor of principle by tepples · 2013-01-04 02:44 · Score: 2

It impacts people who care about principle the software they use is based upon.

Unfortunately for people who do care about principle, the vast majority of people buying electronics for individual use have shown that they do not care about principle, and only products targeted to the vast majority benefit from the sort of economies of scale seen in mass-market products.

Re:Economies of scale not in favor of principle by VGPowerlord · 2013-01-04 03:42 · Score: 2

Samsung doesn't care. AT&T doesn't care. Customers don't care.
That doesn't leave much.
It leaves the developers who develop applications for Android.
Which is the group directly affected by terms of use changes to the SDK.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

Re:Practical Implications? by neokushan · 2013-01-04 02:47 · Score: 2

Yeah. SDK. Not the AOSP code. The SDK has nothing to do with Cyanogen or any other custom ROM, they're based off of the same code, code that's DESIGNED to work with what the SDK produces.
This does not affect CM.

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill

Re:Practical Implications? by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 02:49 · Score: 2

CM is not fragmentation, there are no changes to the API, but again: THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANDROID.

Android is still open.

The _SDK_ is what's changed. The _SDK_ is what you use to write _APPS_ for Android.

CyanogenMod contains absolutely nothing from the SDK. It is not in any way affected by these licensing conditions, any more than Ubuntu suddenly becomes closed source if Intel releases a C compiler for Linux systems. If Cyanogen and his team wants to fork Android and produce a version with an entirely incompatible API they continue to have the right to do that.

At this point I'm not sure if this is genuine confusion on your part, or if you're part of the legion of Slashdot Google FUD spreaders. I'm not happy about the SDK licensing change but I can honestly say it does not in any way, shape, or form affect the openness of Android itself. If and when Google imposes new licenses on AOSP, you can start to pretend that CyanogenMod is suddenly in legal jeopardy. It isn't right now.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

It's the same as the older SDK agreements by steevithak · 2013-01-04 02:49 · Score: 5, Informative

I just checked the wayback machine and the SDK terms haven't changed much in years. Here's a link to the 2010 terms for the SDK:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100724144708/http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html

Pretty much the same as the current SDK agreement. The parts under proprietary license you can't mess with, the parts under open source licenses you can do what you want with. I can't see that anything has changed with the latest version of the agreement.

Re:It's the same as the older SDK agreements by damaki · 2013-01-04 04:28 · Score: 2

The entire story feels like free fsf FUD. Or maybe the Replicant people trying to get more people on their project.

--
Stupidity is the root of all evil.

"Take any actions" or "Promoting in any way" by The1stImmortal · 2013-01-04 02:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

First: IANAL

What scares me about this license change is that Google is attempting to prevent, apparently in perpetuity, those agreeing to the license terms from doing anything involving fragmentation of Android (web links? Mentioning on Slashdot comments?), or from promoting a software development kit "derived from the SDK" - that presumably includes older, legitimate forks.

I didn't even realise that it was legal (or at least, enforceable) to prevent someone from doing something completely unrelated to the licensed material at issue in a one-sided license agreement. Like preventing people from doing things that "may cause or result in the fragmentation of android". That would be like the license requirement requiring users not to hop on one leg for the rest of their lives as a result of agreeing.

Hopefully the definition of "SDK" in the first section of the license [1.1: "The Android Software Development Kit (referred to in this License Agreement as the "SDK" and specifically including the Android system files, packaged APIs, and Google APIs add-ons)..."] is specific enough to not apply to derived works of the Apache-licensed source of the SDK in AOSP's repo's.

Re:Two devices by h4rr4r · 2013-01-04 02:52 · Score: 2

They would not need to be made available for the fork.

It would be fairly simple to retain binary compatibility with AOSP or the last version of it. The same way the Cyanogenmod does not need special apps.

For me, I would not carry two phones. I would rather give up the non-free applications.

Re:I am a reverse-engineer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:53 · Score: 2, Funny

with BLACKJACK! and HOOKERS!

Re:Practical Implications? by metamarmoset · 2013-01-04 03:14 · Score: 2

It seems as though they are trying to prevent fork's even at the the sdk level.

Sparking a fork at the SDK level.

Ah, bitter-sweet irony!

Re:I am a reverse-engineer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:14 · Score: 2, Funny

On second thought, forget the SDK!

Re:Practical Implications? by squiggleslash · 2013-01-04 03:33 · Score: 2

Well OK. Also not yet affected by changes to the SDK licensing terms:

* Windows 8
* Ubuntu
* The entire GNU project
* iOS
* Slashcode
* The New York Times
* The birther case against President Obama
* The thing Glenn Beck allegedly did that he hasn't denied
* The pair of headphones on my desk
* The value of the US dollar
* Superman
* Batman
* The Mayan Calendar

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

PC-only term bans AIDE by tepples · 2013-01-04 04:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Since when do app developers typically need to "modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK"?

Say an application developer carries a tablet on which he uses AIDE to make and test small changes to an application while on the road. As Bill_the_Engineer pointed out, that's prohibited to the extent that AIDE contains any SDK component: "You may not [...] load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer."

Some Potential Context by Skythe · 2013-01-04 05:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Andy Rubin (Co-founder of Android before Google bought it, and current VP of Mobile) posted this a few months ago in relation to Aluyin OS. https://plus.google.com/112599748506977857728/posts/hRcCi5xgayg (which links to the official Android blog: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-benefits-importance-of-compatibility.html).

It sounds like this modification of the SDK might be another move toward Google defending against this Aluyin OS-style modification of Android. While Android is commonly cited as being "fragmented" due to the %'s of handsets that have older versions of Android on them (see the Development Dashboard); what these links talk about is a very serious, more dangerous style of fragmentation. Currently all Android apps are forward compatible with future versions and most are backward compatible (unless the develop chooses to use a new API and not include any graceful degradation in their app for older versions). But Google's flavor of Android is also sideways-compatible with the likes of Amazon such that if you write an app intended for the play store and later decide to distribute it to an Amazon-flavored device (via their app store or other various means), you can do this.

The implications of allowing such activities to continue are that Android could turn into a true wild-west of operating systems. From a technical standpoint, a budding Chinese developer modifies some core Android source code which work with the apps being developed by his company, but suddenly break every other app developed for their flavor of the Android OS -- and then suddenly developers for that hypothetical OS can no longer pick up their app and take it to Google's (/Amazon's) flavor of Android without resorting to hacks and workarounds. Suddenly that Android Development dashboard needs to represent that data in more than 2 dimensions - and Google's got a world of new problems to deal with.

See this Architecture Diagram for some further context. Basically the various Android OEM's and custom ROM developers such as Cyanogenmod should only really be modifying the blue bits and maybe some of the green (I'm sure ROM developers would argue on the red bits, but in a perfect world..). Seems like Google is trying to stop the messing with of the yellow "Android runtime" section.

Google pulling a Sun by Tough+Love · 2013-01-04 08:43 · Score: 2

Larry Page better remember what happened to Sun. Sun used to rule the world. Now look at them. Err, you can't they're dead. It's getting hard to tell the difference between control freak Google over Android versus Control freak Sun over Java.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Slashdot Mirror

The Android SDK Is No Longer Free Software

104 of 535 comments (clear)