Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jan 2013 18:29 UTC
Google A blog post on the Free Software Foundation Europe site is making the rounds around the web. The blog post, written by Torsten Grote, claims that 'the Android SDK is now proprietary', because upon download, you have to agree to terms and conditions which are clearly not compatible with free and/or open source software. What Grote fails to mention - one, these terms have mostly always been here, and two, they only apply to the SDK binaries. The source is still freely available.
Thread beginning with comment 547305
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: No.
by Drumhellar on Fri 4th Jan 2013 18:59 UTC in reply to "No."
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

From the Replicant page:

Replicant provides its own SDK, built from source, since the Android SDK as released by Google is distributed under a non-free license and suggests installing non-free plug-ins such as the Google APIs.

After downloading the Replicant SDK from the ReplicantSDK page, it should work the same as the Android SDK as provided by Google except that the Replicant SDK already contains a built and ready to use emulator image.


If you had bothered to follow the link to the Replicant page, you'd see that they offer the same SDK without Google's restrictions, built from the same source. Emulator included.

But, no. It's more satisfying to remain wrong and believe you were right the entire time.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: No.
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 19:00 in reply to "RE: No."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The Replicant SDK is not the Android SDK. It is an offshoot SDK for an offshoot distribution to Android. The owner of the project agrees with me.

The Android SDK, which is exactly what is being criticized, contains a license agreement you need to agree upon to be able to use.

Not that I care, it's stupid to complain about agreeing to a license agreement. This is much ado about nothing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: No.
by bassbeast on Mon 7th Jan 2013 10:14 in reply to "RE: No."
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

But has anybody compared it to what Google has in its SDK? Because if all they wanted was to protect its copyrights like Mozilla why wouldn't they just use something like the MPL, why go to all this extra mess and BS?

So before I'd say "oh the source is there and its the same" I'd want somebody to do a comparison, after all it wouldn't be the first time a company has given some but not all of the code.

Reply Parent Score: 2