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 These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship.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 582934
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oskeladden
Member since:
2009-08-05

Oh, for crimmy's sake. Yeah, sure. And you can write the whole thing to address controllers and devices directly and completely avoid using the OS's APIs for interacting with them. Heck, you can write your own bootloader and OS kernel and avoid using the OS altogether. You don't need any OS-provided API by that logic - nothing prevents you from implementing your own dialog box system.

The point is this. Google Android is moving in a direction that's making interaction with online services as fundamental a part of the OS and its programming framework as interaction with the device's hardware. This is how the OS is being designed, and this is how it's going to evolve. We are getting to a stage where interaction with online services is as fundamental a part of an OS's programming framework as interaction with the graphic module or the audio codec. If in such a world you have to reimplement virtually all APIs that entail interaction with online services, you've ended up with an OS that is no longer compatible with Google Android, because programs written for Google Android won't run on it. An OS, many of whose core APIs are cordoned off and unavailable in the open-source version, is not an open OS. It may be built on top of an open OS, but it's a different OS from that open OS. Android is already almost at that stage, and Ars Technica are completely correct to draw attention to the fact that this is where Google is going.

This doesn't mean that AOSP not useful, or is a poor OS, or any such thing. It just means that we need to recognise that AOSP and Android are becoming two different things, and that we can't call Android open just because AOSP is open. This is not an issue of semantics. As Ben Edelman points out in the piece* on which Ars was drawing, this has a range of legal implications - not least in terms of competition / antitrust law - which have been glossed over until now because of the "Android is open" argument, but which can't be ignored if that no longer holds.

[*] http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html

Reply Parent Score: 7