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

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 These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship.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 582937
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Old information over blown.
by tkeith on Fri 14th Feb 2014 12:32 UTC
Member since:

Since very early on Android has contained proprietary Google apps. They have always been separate and complimentary, and not essential, to the AOSP base. The amount of Google apps has grown(not surprising) and Google has created a separate app that contains shared code(Google play services) that others can even use. Of course Google would like everyone to use their services, this is not news. The beauty of Android is that others(like Microsoft) could make their own app that contains plugins and ties to their services. How is this "locking down" or making Android less open?

Google owns the name Android and makes an agreement that if you want to use their propitiatory name and services you have to use it properly. Again how is this news?

Reply Score: 2