All Android Devs - a bad news for you !

Replies

• 

  Jasleen08

  Well, your claim may be right, but i dont think your justification is technically correct. For an Instance, if you consider widely used FOSS based Linux, you will come across Terms & Condition sort'o step while installing. And yeah, with a license too, GNU General Public License, a free software license.
• 

  Abhishek Rawal

  Jasleen08

  Well, your claim may be right, but i dont think your justification is technically correct. For an Instance, if you consider widely used FOSS based Linux, you will come across Terms & Condition sort'o step while installing. And yeah, with a license too, GNU General Public License, a free software license.

  I was talking in layman's term.
  Now lets be technical -
  First of all Linux is under GPL v2.0 up licensed.
  FOSS's GPL v1.0 to GPL v3.0 are technically different.
  GPL all version are focused entirely on "Freedom rules" namingly Freedom0 to Freedomxx ,the t&c you see in v1.0 is not same as GPLv2.0 & v3.0
  As per FSF,A software under GPLv1.0 don't have any conditions,means you can get source code,you can do anything with it but ofc don't sell.
  Now,consider most complex license GNU GPLv2.0,the hottest linux distros are under it.You can find closed source & even open source in distros like ubuntu.If you're ubuntu user then you mightve noticed that you wont get unity source code.Canonical has also closed gui of root folder,you can use su root just using cli(terminal)[You cant access root folder using gui but cli,yes-with many root contents closed]
  
  Now coming to your point,T&C are everywhere,my point is what Google's T&C of android sdk binaries is not Open source terms & conditions.While Google claims it to be OpenSource - the T&C says it's not.
  
  One more thing,In google's T&C of Android sdk,it is strictly mentioned that "you cannot create another android sdk using the libs of Google's sdk"
  Well this breaks one of the Freedom rule of Opensource.
  
  PS : More detail on the FSF Freedom Protocols are obtained in official website.Compare these,you'll be amazed how Google breaks the clauses.
  Again, every version of GPL i.e. 1.0 to 3.0 has massive changes 😀
  
  This GPL license is extremely complex.
  When you start reading it from very beginning, confusion starts trolling your mind.
  
  You'll even find some softwares & distros mixed license i.e. GPL 2.0 + GPL 3.0, GPL + Proprietary license are also there.In short,this is very complex.
• 

  Anoop Kumar

  I find this T&C complex.
  As per I understand we can use SDK to develop application and can sell those developed application.
  But,
  We can also change the source of android SDK itself for our use but can't sell that modified android SDK to third party. Right? or I am missing some part.
• 

  Abhishek Rawal

  ianoop

  I find this T&C complex.
  As per I understand we can use SDK to develop application and can sell those developed application.

  True that.
  
  

  ianoop

  We can also change the source of android SDK itself for our use but can't sell that modified android SDK to third party. Right? or I am missing some part.

  As per GNU GPLv2 - No!
  why ? 'cuz modification of code makes it "copyleft" & copyleft(derivative of original source code) can't be sold.Also if Original code is under GPLv2 then copyleft must be same,you probably can't license it with other.
  eg : If your source code is GPLv2 & if i modify your code & develop an app,I cant license it with other like proprietary or GPLv3- It must be same.Plus I have to get permission from original author before I use his code.
  
  According to new Android SDK T&C- No!
  According to new T&C,you can modify but can't even share/mirror for free(don't even think about selling)
  
  Untill this it's okay.But,New Android SDK T&C have "proprietary license lines" like - "If you don't accept the license you won't be able to use sdk" - This violates Freedom0.
  
  Many more "proprietary license lines" were collected by FSF EU blogger & posted in FSF's website 😀