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."
Right?
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!
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
Hitler was ok, he didn't kill as many people as Stalin.
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.
The church was ok, it didn't kill as many as ...
Oh fuck.
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 ?
OH fuck was ok, it didn't kill as many as "Hey guys! Watch this!"
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
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
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
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."
*Cough* Crusades *Cough*
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
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.
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.
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.
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.