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 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 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 *:)*

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 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 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 03:16 · 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

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.

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

Hitler was ok, he didn't kill as many people as Stalin.

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: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: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: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

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

The Android SDK Is No Longer Free Software

30 of 535 comments (clear)