Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Android SDK Is No Longer Free Software

Posted by Soulskill on from the fighting-fragmentation-at-all-costs dept.

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."

14 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. But Android is open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right?

    1. Re:But Android is open by codewarren · · 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.

    2. Re:But Android is open by Marc+Madness · · Score: 5, Funny

      That statement is only valid for large values of "evil".

    3. Re:But Android is open by Flipao · · 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 *:)*

  2. Ubuntu Mobile ... by Pieroxy · · 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!
    1. Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by iakoad · · 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.

    2. Re:Ubuntu Mobile ... by rtfa-troll · · 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();
  3. It's a little worse than summary... by Bill_the_Engineer · · 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...
    1. Re:It's a little worse than summary... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Re:Practical Implications? by squiggleslash · · 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.
  5. Re:Does this surprise anyone? by whisper_jeff · · 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...

  6. It's the same as the older SDK agreements by steevithak · · 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.

  7. Re:come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The church was ok, it didn't kill as many as ...
    Oh fuck.

  8. Re:come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    OH fuck was ok, it didn't kill as many as "Hey guys! Watch this!"