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 These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship.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.

Thread beginning with comment 582920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by aligatro
by aligatro on Fri 14th Feb 2014 03:42 UTC
Member since:

Dianne Hackborn... what a last name.

"But... there is one they fear. In their tongue... she is 'Rekkiin' - Hackborn!" *skyrim music*

I wonder how often she hears about people joking about her last name, especially among the tech-savvy groups.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by aligatro
by kwan_e on Fri 14th Feb 2014 08:08 in reply to "Comment by aligatro"
kwan_e Member since:

Dianne Hackborn... what a last name.

Daenerys Stormborn.

Reply Parent Score: 5