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 These old, most likely outdated licensing terms cover the Google applications, and not the open source Android platform, which anyone can download, alter, build and ship.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 582924
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Android is Android is Android...
by codifies on Fri 14th Feb 2014 06:50 UTC
Member since:

I use Android without gapps, and using my own VPS (or "cloud" if you slavishly follow all the latest buzz words) and FOSS I basically have all the functionality of Android + gapps...

All this BS is just that same as the fragmentation myth - my Fiancée run's Gingerbread with many of the same apps I do, guess what she really can't understand it when I attempt to explain the fragmentation myth...!

What is all boils down to is the same reason for the patent attacks - if you can't compete then CHEAT, LIE and do ANYTHING to smear the reputation of the competition - all it really does is show the poor attitude and desperation of the "competition"

Why attempt to strive for 100% share when getting it would be counter productive and it will never happen anyway - oh silly me "common" sense again...

Edited 2014-02-14 06:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3