Slashdot Mirror
Google Apps License Forbids Forking, Promotes Google Services
Sockatume writes "If you want to ship a phone with Google's apps on it, you need to license them. A copy of the OEM licensing agreement from 2011 was recently leaked, and Ars Technica provides a summary. Amongst the rules: a company licensing Google Apps can't act in a way that would fragment Android, but must also maintain the platform's open-ness; most of Google's services must be included; Google apps must be defaults, and placed within a couple of clicks of the default home screen. No surprises, but it's interesting to see the details laid out."
Tying apps to phones might be illegal by Sherman Act: using dominance in mobile device OS market as leverage in the device app market.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Google calls out implanting "any viruses, worms, date bombs, time bombs, or other code that is specifically designed to cause the Google Applications to cease operating" as being banned in approved devices.
It's both interesting and very sad that this has to be spelled out in a license agreement, makes me think that they've run into OEMs purposefully building 'bombs' to keep people buying new phones.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
You're right, the Apple license to allow me to use iOS and Apple apps on my own phone brand is MUCH more open. At least according to my unicorn lawyer.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Android is based on Linux. The Google apps are not. Despite what some people claim, not everything written for a GPL operating system must be open source.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
All of Android is open source, except Google Play/Market, Gmail app, Google Maps, etc If you want your phone to have the Google App store, then you need to obey their terms and conditions. Just because the OS is open source doesn't mean any program which runs on it has to be. There are plenty of non GPL programs available for Linux! An android phone WITHOUT access to Google app store, Google Maps, Calender, Gmail etc isn't going to be much use to the majority of Android users. This is how Google controls Android.
Not in the sense you probably mean, no.
The Android kernel is a Linux kernel. That part is true. But, a Linux kernel is far from sufficient for building an Android device or running Android apps.
Google is not placing these restrictions on that part. The use of the Linux kernel does not spread virus-like to random other components of the distribution, so has pretty much no bearing on the stuff under discussion.
In practice, Android is not very open right now, and is very deliberately becoming less open over time. (This has both advantages and disadvantages.)
You're right, the Apple license to allow me to use iOS and Apple apps on my own phone brand is MUCH more open. At least according to my unicorn lawyer.
He said HONEST not OPEN
I think you need to get over it. You seem hostile. Nothing in this agreement can be construed as 'evil' by any rational person. In fact, there are clauses specifically in there to prevent others from being 'evil'.
BTW: It's that language that makes women uncomfortable, grow up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What about the ability to unlock the bootstrapper? My Motorola phone, which came out while Motorola was owned by Google, doesn't allow me to unlock the bootstrapper. No exploit exists, so no CyanogenMod for me... and Motorola's last OS update was to 4.1.2 over a year ago, and I purchased the phone with that version.
I don't see how you can say there is a requirement to "maintain the platform's open-ness" when the company you own doesn't keep their devices open.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
http://www.jolla.com/ - for example - is one example of a vendor selling a phone that can run android apps - on top of 'normal' linux - without preinstalling the normal google play market. (because they can't - as what they are doing in making the linux side more open means it's not vanilla android anymore)
Why is this news? This has been known for a very, very long time.
Android is Android and Google apps are Google's apps.
I guess folks really are as stupid as they appear.
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
And AOSP is one heckuvalot more than just a kernel.
I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...even Microsoft allows you to skinny up its default OS installs nowadays.
You can disable them, they don't get removed from the phone but they also don't run.
The list of exception is rather significant: the missing apps are also the foundations of the API other apps uses. So you are not just missing out on the Google App Store and a few standalone apps, but all the API related to those apps too - which a very exhaustive list.
When people say "Android is open-source" that is not what they have in mind. In practice Android is open source like OSX is open source (Darwin), sure you get the foundations of a great system, but none of the shiny bits. So rather than a walled garden, you have a fenced garden. If you want freedom you need to look at Firefox and Ubuntu.
Have a look at the following doc for detailled discussion: http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Here's a list of about 100 Android apps which use Open Street Map...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/...
And, of course, navigation:
https://play.google.com/store/...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.
The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.
Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.
Fair enough, at least for the 'no forking' stipulation, but the whole requirement to pre-install all google apps if one only wants access to, say, the Play Store? And the mandatory submission of *very* granular sales data? How, exactly, do these stipulations contribute to platform stability?
I fail to see how it is different from the whole hullabaloo with Microsoft and Internet Explorer, the outcome of which was:
Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions were resolved through a Consent Decree that took effect in 2001 and a Final Judgment entered in 2002. These proceedings imposed various constraints on our Windows operating system businesses. These constraints include limits on certain contracting practices, mandated disclosure of certain software program interfaces and protocols, and rights for computer manufacturers to limit the visibility of certain Windows features in new PCs. We believe we are in full compliance with these rules. However, if we fail to comply with them, additional restrictions could be imposed on us that would adversely affect our business.
So, here we see MS originally taking the hard-line approach, then being forced to allow vendors to 'bury' Windows-specific features in favor of their own offerings. True, most new Windows PCs still ship with IE pre-installed and ready to go, but it's no longer up to MS to dictate that it shall be so.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted? And why are you blaming Google? I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but seriously, I don't get it. I don't buy iPhones because they are a closed system. I don't buy locked Android phones because they are hard to update. What led you to decide to buy a locked phone when unlocked phones were readily available?
As for the App issue, it's actually extensively rebutted in the comments to the article. Bottom line: Ars Technica clickbait.
Jolla? You know you wanna. :)
That really sucks—sorry!
Google maps will not work without Google Play
First of all, I linked not just to one website, but to four. Second, yes, I know some people are offended by it; in fact, pick something, anything, doesn't matter what, and I bet I can find at least a handful of people who are offended by that thing. If we all go out of our way not to offend, we literally accomplish nothing, because we have to literally do nothing in order to not offend anyone, which, of course, someone is going to find offensive. Follow?
Where was the gender implication in bazmail's use of the word? There was none; in fact, while bazmail may not have been using it in the playful and friendly way it is often used in Ireland (no gender implied, there, either), there was also no vulgarity behind its use. One of three commonly accepted (American) english definitions for the word is "a term used to refer to a contemptible person" (note the late of gender); there is nothing vulgar implied there, and that is the definition which best fits the context of this usage. In some cultures, it's actually used as a slang term for addressing a friend, or group thereof.
Yes, if you want to be a cunt (e.g. "a mean or obnoxious person") and pretend it's nothing more than a vulgar reference to a woman's reproductive organs, I agree, it's quite offensive. Personally, I'd much rather meet you and the rest of that bunch of cunts (e.g. "the kind of people one might go have a beer with") for a beer, though, so I can better explain how your narrow world view and lack of understanding lead you to observe grievous offenses where, in fact, there are none. Then, I can be done using that word for a while.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I guess linux isn't open becasue I can put Windows kernel code in it.
Indeed, but would you then try to claim that the Windows code is open source, because you put it on an open platform? Also, are you only allowed to put your Windows kernel on a specific distro?
Android base (AOSP) is open. Android with Google is not. Simple, really.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Google = Apple with that closed stance
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that...but the trend is definitely towards MS territory, at least.
"Here's a shiny mobile platform, completely open! Oh, and to effectively use it, you'll just have to agree to this list of conditions and restrictions to get access to our API's, kk? What!?! It's still open, we just dictate how and when and where our stuff is used...and hey, 3/4 of the ecosystem for this platform is dependant on these API's, so c'mon, what're you waiting for..."
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted?
That you stop to interrogate this one user as if he'd violated some law shows just how blinding self-selection becomes... you've forgotten that we don't sign a contract to follow all these tenets you hold unthinkable to ignore. Just because we are slashdotters does not mean we're ALL zealots.