The FAQs Google issued (via the Open Handset Alliance) on Android contain an interesting sale pitch related to Google's selection of the Apache license:
"The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate . . . without the requirement to contribute these innovations back to the open source community. . . . [they] are protected from the 'viral infection' problem often associated with other licenses."
This leads to a sort of "suspicions confirmed" moment about Google's view of its relationship to the FOSS community: it is a one-way street, in which Google gets benefits, but does not make serious contributions in return.
During the run-up to the roll-out of v3 of the GPL, there was argument over the activities of ASPs such as Google, which use open source code as a mainspring of their activities but avoid making public their significant improvements because they do not distribute code. Under GPLv2, only distribution triggers a disclosure obligation.
Many FOSS members regard this as a serious loophole, and wanted it closed in GPLv3, but Google and other ASPs resisted, and v3 was unchanged on this point. See IT Business Edge.
At the Open Source Business Conference last May, Free Software Foundation guru Even Moglen acknowledged the problem, and said he would be working with Google to improve its contributions to the FOSS community.
Judging by Android, his efforts do not seem to be working. Android is based on Linux. The code Google adds to create Android will be open as per the Apache license, but that code can then be taken and turned back into locked programs by phone makers or wireless providers.
This is explained in an ArsTechnica post (characterized by Google as "one of the best explanations for the reasoning behind releasing code under Apache2"):
[A] copyleft license could potentially limit the evolution of the mobile software ecosystem by discouraging commercial development on top of the platform. Proprietary mobile software development companies that integrate Android into their technologies would have to dramatically change their business models if they aren't given the ability to keep their enhancements proprietary.
So the business plan seems to be that Google will persuade FOSS developers to write for Android, but under a system in which their code can be lifted by phone makers and service providers for the profit of others in the system without any reciprocity. (Of course, developers may also be hired by the commercial players to write proprietary programs, but this is not exactly the spirit of FOSS.)
As one Internet comment said: "[The licensing] does not inspire much confidence that this is really some sort of open phone for the users, rather than a potentially interesting, PR-savvy way of saving money for a bunch of manufacturers." Good call.
But Google will sell the advertising, riding on top of everyone else's work.
For those of us who have nothing against commercial software, all of this is just fine, especially the Ars Technica explanations of the advantages of going the commercial route, but if one is a dedicated member of the FOSS community, one might be feeling a little used.
Slashdot Mirror
This leads to a sort of "suspicions confirmed" moment about Google's view of its relationship to the FOSS community: it is a one-way street, in which Google gets benefits, but does not make serious contributions in return. During the run-up to the roll-out of v3 of the GPL, there was argument over the activities of ASPs such as Google, which use open source code as a mainspring of their activities but avoid making public their significant improvements because they do not distribute code. Under GPLv2, only distribution triggers a disclosure obligation.
Many FOSS members regard this as a serious loophole, and wanted it closed in GPLv3, but Google and other ASPs resisted, and v3 was unchanged on this point. See IT Business Edge.
At the Open Source Business Conference last May, Free Software Foundation guru Even Moglen acknowledged the problem, and said he would be working with Google to improve its contributions to the FOSS community.
Judging by Android, his efforts do not seem to be working. Android is based on Linux. The code Google adds to create Android will be open as per the Apache license, but that code can then be taken and turned back into locked programs by phone makers or wireless providers.
This is explained in an ArsTechnica post (characterized by Google as "one of the best explanations for the reasoning behind releasing code under Apache2"):
So the business plan seems to be that Google will persuade FOSS developers to write for Android, but under a system in which their code can be lifted by phone makers and service providers for the profit of others in the system without any reciprocity. (Of course, developers may also be hired by the commercial players to write proprietary programs, but this is not exactly the spirit of FOSS.)
As one Internet comment said: "[The licensing] does not inspire much confidence that this is really some sort of open phone for the users, rather than a potentially interesting, PR-savvy way of saving money for a bunch of manufacturers." Good call.
But Google will sell the advertising, riding on top of everyone else's work.
For those of us who have nothing against commercial software, all of this is just fine, especially the Ars Technica explanations of the advantages of going the commercial route, but if one is a dedicated member of the FOSS community, one might be feeling a little used.