Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Feb 2014 23:38 UTC
Google

Another day, another fear-mongering 'Android is closed!'-article at Ars Technica. After Peter Bright's article last week (sharply torn to shreds by Dianne Hackborn), we now have an article with the scary title "New Android OEM licensing terms leak; 'open' comes with a lot of restrictions".

The title itself is already highly misleading, since one, the licensing terms aren't new (they're from early 2011 - that's three years old), and two, they're not licensing terms for Android, but for the suite of Google applications that run atop Android.

This article makes the classic mistake about the nature of Android. It conflates the Android Open Source Project with the suite of optional proprietary Google applications, the GMS. These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship. Everyone can build a smartphone business based on the Android Open Source Project, which is a complete smartphone operating system.

Permalink for comment 582922
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Is AOSP still 'Android'?
by l3v1 on Fri 14th Feb 2014 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Is AOSP still 'Android'?"
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

But technically any device that has no GMS will not have the permission to be named AndroidTM.


Very good. At least you know to expect something different. Noone would like to find that out later.

Reply Parent Score: 3