07-29-11 04:46 PM
42 12
tools
  1. greatwiseone's Avatar
    Here's a bit of info on Android LICENSING (there HAS to be an agreement. Even Linux is licensed, just under GPLv2 open source license terms).

    From Android Q&A:

    Google oversees the development of the core Android open-source platform, and works to create robust developer and user communities. For the most part the Android source code is licensed under the permissive Apache Software License 2.0, rather than a "copyleft" license. The main reason for this is because our most important goal is widespread adoption of the software, and we believe that the ASL2.0 license best achieves that goal.

    Here's a link to the Apache Software License: Apache License, Version 2.0

    So, by utilizing Android in the Android App Player, RIM would have to LICENSE the various parts of Android pursuant to the Apache Software License.

    Here's a link to an article talking about why Android is licensed under Apache 2.0:

    Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android

    It's actually much more complicated (because Google itself would be licensed the Linux kernel from the Linux foundation under GPLv2), but simply saying that you can do anything with the Android code is inaccurate.
    07-28-11 12:27 AM
  2. tdawg00's Avatar
    Here's a bit of info on Android LICENSING (there HAS to be an agreement. Even Linux is licensed, just under GPLv2 open source license terms).

    From Android Q&A:

    Google oversees the development of the core Android open-source platform, and works to create robust developer and user communities. For the most part the Android source code is licensed under the permissive Apache Software License 2.0, rather than a "copyleft" license. The main reason for this is because our most important goal is widespread adoption of the software, and we believe that the ASL2.0 license best achieves that goal.

    Here's a link to the Apache Software License: Apache License, Version 2.0

    So, by utilizing Android in the Android App Player, RIM would have to LICENSE the various parts of Android pursuant to the Apache Software License.

    Here's a link to an article talking about why Android is licensed under Apache 2.0:

    Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android

    It's actually much more complicated (because Google itself would be licensed the Linux kernel from the Linux foundation under GPLv2), but simply saying that you can do anything with the Android code is inaccurate.
    Exactly...


    Some of the comments make it seem like ANYONE cantake the software and make some random derivative of it.

    You have to call it ANDROID, which is the most obvious of the license agreement.

    RiM just cant just download and rename it BBOS because its free and open source. Google is still in control of the core OS not the person who downloaded it.

    There are certain layers of Android that RIM has to comply too. Free or not.



    Even though the software is open-source, device manufacturers cannot use Google's Android trademark unless Google certifies that the device complies with their Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). Devices must also meet this definition to be eligible to license Google's closed-source applications, including the Android Market.
    07-28-11 12:51 AM
  3. samab's Avatar
    It's actually much more complicated (because Google itself would be licensed the Linux kernel from the Linux foundation under GPLv2), but simply saying that you can do anything with the Android code is inaccurate.
    It's not complicated at all.

    GPLv2 allows Motorola to tivo-ize their android phones --- i.e. put in the locked bootloader --- as long as Motorola provides source code. GPLv2 also allows Google to basically keep their own source code on their main business private --- because they ain't actually distributing binaries when you go to google to make a internet search. Huge loophole in the GPLv2 for "software as a service".

    Apache 2.0 allows companies to fork the source code and keep the forked source code private.

    The only problem is the trademark issue. That's why Verizon doesn't call their phones android phones --- they are called "droid" which Verizon licenses from George Lucas. Verizon calls it a "droid" phone and can put Bing search and Bing Maps on it. As long as the final "android player" on the Playbook isn't actually called "android" --- then there is nothing Google can do. As long as the Playbook doesn't use Google search or Google Maps, then there is nothing Google can do.
    Last edited by samab; 07-28-11 at 01:43 AM.
    07-28-11 01:40 AM
  4. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    i know people are gonna get upset at this comment but i gotta say it... having the android app on the PB for me is like saying 'oh you dont like the PB's OS so here have Google's instead'. I feel that useing the Android App is, in a way, turing your back on the PB and turing it into a 7" Android Tablet. If you want an Android tablet go out and buy one dont warp the PB into one....and now come the hate comments LOL.... oh FYI i sell the PB and im defending it everyday to non believers so dont think im a hater cause im not
    It's an Android APP Player. It's not going to emulate the entire Android OS on your PB. It's not like running Parallels and having Android in a window over QNX. It's just running an app. And once they are repackaged and resigned by the devs, they won't be Android apps anyway, they'll be TabletOS Apps.

    It's like installing the Safari browser on a Windows PC. Doesn't turn it into MacOS, its just a program.
    07-28-11 01:55 PM
  5. tdawg00's Avatar
    It's not complicated at all.

    GPLv2 allows Motorola to tivo-ize their android phones --- i.e. put in the locked bootloader --- as long as Motorola provides source code. GPLv2 also allows Google to basically keep their own source code on their main business private --- because they ain't actually distributing binaries when you go to google to make a internet search. Huge loophole in the GPLv2 for "software as a service".

    Apache 2.0 allows companies to fork the source code and keep the forked source code private.

    The only problem is the trademark issue. That's why Verizon doesn't call their phones android phones --- they are called "droid" which Verizon licenses from George Lucas. Verizon calls it a "droid" phone and can put Bing search and Bing Maps on it. As long as the final "android player" on the Playbook isn't actually called "android" --- then there is nothing Google can do. As long as the Playbook doesn't use Google search or Google Maps, then there is nothing Google can do.

    huh??? Any phone with Android on Verizon has "with Google" on the back of it. For example... Droid3 with Google. The used "Droid" to differentiate themselves from other carriers not because they "cant" use the name Android.
    07-29-11 12:54 AM
  6. samab's Avatar
    huh??? Any phone with Android on Verizon has "with Google" on the back of it. For example... Droid3 with Google. The used "Droid" to differentiate themselves from other carriers not because they "cant" use the name Android.
    The use of Google as a trademark is different from the use of Android as a trademark. Each trademark is covered by different restrictions.
    07-29-11 01:28 AM
  7. lawguyman's Avatar
    I learned something interesting from reading the Apache license:

    The Apache license gives RIM the right to create "Derivative Works." A Derivative Work is something that is based on the Android OS. So, the Android Player is a "Derivative Work."

    Here is where it gets interesting:

    You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
    I think what this means is that although Android is open source, RIM's Andorid Player need not be. RIM can license the Android Player to us and have us agree not to modify or alter it. So, if RIM decides to lock down the Android player and does things to prohibit us from doing things like side loading apps or using the Android Market, it has the right to do that.

    I guess that this is kind of bad news for those who wanted to tear the Andoid Player apart and maybe do things that RIM would not permit us to do.
    07-29-11 06:43 AM
  8. joshua_sx1's Avatar
    I guess, regardless Android is an open source or not, RIM should make a legal pre-arrangement to use its code (or whatever)... because, whether we like it or not, Googles's lawyers can always find a way to sue someone who will beat their supported products i.e. Android Tablets... and a playbook running an Android applications will become tough competitor of Android tablets... that's 100% sure...
    07-29-11 11:13 AM
  9. samab's Avatar
    I guess, regardless Android is an open source or not, RIM should make a legal pre-arrangement to use its code (or whatever)... because, whether we like it or not, Googles's lawyers can always find a way to sue someone who will beat their supported products i.e. Android Tablets... and a playbook running an Android applications will become tough competitor of Android tablets... that's 100% sure...
    Why would RIM needs to do that?

    The "legal pre-arrangement" is the actual copyright license of the Android OS itself.

    This is not like the average joe who install a piece of software by just clicking the <OK> button on the licensing terms without actually reading it. When you click the <OK> button to install a piece of software, you agree to the licensing terms --- that's your "legal pre-arrangement".

    The terms of all the open source copyright licenses are well known by tech lawyers. You don't think that RIM actually read the Apache 2.0 license before RIM open-sourced their own Webworks source code under Apache 2.0?
    Last edited by samab; 07-29-11 at 12:27 PM.
    07-29-11 12:21 PM
  10. samab's Avatar
    I think what this means is that although Android is open source, RIM's Andorid Player need not be.
    As I said earlier, Apache 2.0 means that RIM can fork Android and keep their forked branch source code private.

    There is a reason why IBM is a big Apache license supporter.
    07-29-11 12:24 PM
  11. lnichols's Avatar
    I guess, regardless Android is an open source or not, RIM should make a legal pre-arrangement to use its code (or whatever)... because, whether we like it or not, Googles's lawyers can always find a way to sue someone who will beat their supported products i.e. Android Tablets... and a playbook running an Android applications will become tough competitor of Android tablets... that's 100% sure...
    Right and I'm sure that if Google did that, then RIM could find plenty of patents related to phones that Google may be violating too. Google would be just blowing money at that point. If you live by OpenSource, you can also die by it.
    07-29-11 01:59 PM
  12. samab's Avatar
    Right and I'm sure that if Google did that, then RIM could find plenty of patents related to phones that Google may be violating too. Google would be just blowing money at that point. If you live by OpenSource, you can also die by it.
    There is no need for legal pre-arrangement because the Apache 2.0 license is the legal copyright license itself.

    RIM has released their webworks souce code by the same Apache 2.0 license. Don't you think that RIM would have read the Apache 2.0 license before they open sourced their own proprietary codes?
    07-29-11 02:09 PM
  13. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    I would speculate that Google has absolutely no issues with RIM incorporating a VM instance of Android. I would even go as far as to speculate there's a strong probability that developers at RIM probably consult with people at Google on a semi-regular basis to help in the process of integrating it. More devices utilizing more Google's services is just good news for Google.

    But then too, I did say speculate. :shrug: Mainly because I don't see a downside for Google. I don't know if there would be any significant impact or concern over revenue from the Android Market since PB apps will be sold through AppWorld. But Google doesn't seem too concerned about it.
    K Bear likes this.
    07-29-11 03:46 PM
  14. K Bear's Avatar
    I would speculate that Google has absolutely no issues with RIM incorporating a VM instance of Android. I would even go as far as to speculate there's a strong probability that developers at RIM probably consult with people at Google on a semi-regular basis to help in the process of integrating it. More devices utilizing more Google's services is just good news for Google.

    But then too, I did say speculate. :shrug: Mainly because I don't see a downside for Google. I don't know if there would be any significant impact or concern over revenue from the Android Market since PB apps will be sold through AppWorld. But Google doesn't seem too concerned about it.
    For Google, the more assimilation, the better.
    07-29-11 03:50 PM
  15. samab's Avatar
    I would speculate that Google has absolutely no issues with RIM incorporating a VM instance of Android. I would even go as far as to speculate there's a strong probability that developers at RIM probably consult with people at Google on a semi-regular basis to help in the process of integrating it. More devices utilizing more Google's services is just good news for Google.

    But then too, I did say speculate. :shrug: Mainly because I don't see a downside for Google. I don't know if there would be any significant impact or concern over revenue from the Android Market since PB apps will be sold through AppWorld. But Google doesn't seem too concerned about it.
    Except that Google's main business is the search business --- and RIM signed a deal with Microsoft Bing search.
    07-29-11 04:38 PM
  16. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Except that Google's main business is the search business --- and RIM signed a deal with Microsoft Bing search.
    Yes, which would give Google all the more incentive to encourage the use of their products and services on devices that would be Bing-Centric without it.
    07-29-11 04:44 PM
  17. samab's Avatar
    Yes, which would give Google all the more incentive to encourage the use of their products and services on devices that would be Bing-Centric without it.
    Microsoft is paying RIM to put Bing Search on their handsets and tablets.

    There is no better incentive than pure cash.
    07-29-11 04:46 PM
42 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD