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 These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship.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 582942
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oskeladden
Member since:
2009-08-05

I love how Amazon provides us with nice counterexamples for all those uninformed opinions about how GMS is necessary and AOSP without it is useless.


Chithanh, you didn't even read my post, did you? If you did, I don't see how you could have missed this:

This doesn't mean that AOSP not useful, or is a poor OS, or any such thing


or this:

t just means that we need to recognise that AOSP and Android are becoming two different things


This is demonstrably true. Many games written for Google Android will not run on the Kindle Fire. An even better example is Ouya, which has had to run promotions to get game devs to code for their OS, because games written for Google Android will not run on an AOSP based OS. WHICH IS THE PRECISE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING!

Ach, I'm sick of this. You can have the last word.

Reply Parent Score: 3