GPL

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've had a quick look. My explicit concern here is that they're going
for GPLv3. I'd feel happier if they went with GPLv2 instead (I can
understand that they don't want BSD or ASLv2), in order to leave the
door open for some future cooperation with the Android Open-Source
Project.

JBQ

-- 
Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru
Software Engineer, Android Open-Source Project, Google. 

I don't think we should do that. If you want to help move Android forward
there should be at least a little cooperation with google.  AOSP would not
be able to adopt any changes we make if we keep it GPLv3

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jude...@gmail.com on 28 Sep 2009 at 2:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I too share grave concerns about any code being generated that can't in 
principle be
'synced' with the Open Handset Alliance's official Android code.

Be open-minded, it is highly conceivable that Google may be happy to cherry-pick
certain improvements and what from this work straight in to their own branches.

By electing to choose a licence that prevents such feedback stifles innovation 
for
the Android platform in which incarnation it is to be found in.  That's not 
what this
project is about, right?

Original comment by silverba...@gmail.com on 28 Sep 2009 at 8:06

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Android Open Alliance should make sure that its work is licensed in a way that 
other
developers should feel comfortable about, and that there could be eventually 
ways to
use it by manufacturers who want a substitute of Google Expeirence on non-Google
phones. If GPL v3 is a show-stopper, please make sure you consider viable 
business
plan in the long run. 

Original comment by rayner...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 2:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yeah, GPL would be a pretty big speed-bump for any contributions upstream to 
Android. For straight-up standalone apps, it's not an issue, but anything that 
touches 
framework or system code can't be accepted if it's not Apache 2.0.

Original comment by morri...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 4:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please make your changes and new applications available under the MIT/X11 
license
(and if that is not possible APL or EPL). This will make it possible to 
reintegrate
it in the main-branch of android and would give all users/developers the chance 
to
benefit from your work. Why should you make it for Google not possible to use 
your
work? They founded the Android-Project and developed the first apps. I would 
help the
project, if it would be as free as possible.

My Vote for MIT/X11!

Original comment by tomb...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 4:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

MIT/X11 is, IIRC, very similar to the New BSD license, which is probably 
something 
Android could tolerate.  However, Apache 2.0 is also very similar to the BSD 
family, but 
adds important protections related to patents, which is why Android uses it.  I 
still 
strongly encourage Apache 2.0 not just for compatibility with upstream Android, 
but 
because it's generally a superior license in the same spirit as BSD.

Original comment by morri...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 5:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am with morrildl on that matter, Apache 2.0 offers maximum compatibility with
Android OS core and some future development of AOA may be groundbreaking enough 
to
make it into the core OS. Such possibilities should be considered. Android's
strengths is exactly in the open nature of the platform. Sure, Google's 
closed-source
apps are a different thing - it's not the code that is protected as much as the
"brand" that is called Google Experience. 

Original comment by rayner...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 5:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I would like a license prerebly Apache, that allows or code to go into the 
official source.  The goal is to 
futhur android while making a non google branded experience.

Original comment by jude...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 6:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I would also like to see this project adopt the Apache 2.0 license, as morrildl 
suggested. Are the owners of this 
project against this idea? 

Original comment by stelian....@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 8:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Indeed, I would like to see anyone proffer viewpoints as to why this project 
shouldn't 
adopt the Apache 2.0 licence.

Original comment by silverba...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2009 at 8:50

[GoogleCodeExporter]

i also woudl like apache for flexibility for all

Original comment by ged...@gmail.com on 1 Oct 2009 at 9:31

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It will also all companies to sue it, but also to contribute back. This will be 
an 
excellent way to get the code base extended later if companies decide to use 
this open 
code base.

Original comment by ged...@gmail.com on 1 Oct 2009 at 9:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am definitely in FAVOUR of the GPLv3.

Firstly, the GPL is more in-line with free (as in freedom) software. I really 
don't
understand why Google chose the Apache license in the first place. It has 
allowed 3rd
parties (such as HTC and, I think, Vodafone?) to customise Android, improve it, 
and
then not share those improvements with the community. In fact they don't have to
reveal the source code for their improvements at all, which makes their 
customised
Androids proprietary and closed source! This isn't in the communities interests 
at all!

In addition, regarding the criticism that using the GPL will prevent inclusion 
of
improvements in the upstream Android repository, I don't think this is 
something to
be concerned about. Any improvements made will remain in the Open Android 
Alliance's
repository, and in the community, so nothing is lost. And improvements from the
upstream Google repository can always be included in the Open Android Alliance's
repository, so we wouldn't miss out on anything. I don't see why we should care 
what
Google decide to include, or not include, in their repository. Surely the 
purpose of
the Open Android Alliance is to further Android, not the Google-maintained 
Android!
That's why The Open Android Alliance has it's *own* code repository, isn't it?

Furthermore, by using the GPL, we ensure that our improvements don't end up in 
the
HTC/Vodafone proprietary, closed source Androids. If this were to happen, those 
3rd
parties would end up benefiting from our code (which isn't so bad in it's self),
improving our code further and not having to share any of those further 
improvements
back with us! This also doesn't sound much like it's in the communities 
interests...

As anyone reading this will be able to tell, I am a strong advocate of free 
(think:
freedom, rights) software, and not open source (think: convenient) software. I 
am not
trolling here and would welcome discussion. I'm just quite surprised at how much
criticism of using the GPL there is here!

The very purpose of the GPL is to keep the source code in the community! And 
this
seems far more "in line" with the goals of the Open Android Alliance. I 
seriously
hope that the Open Android Alliance will continue to use the GPL for this 
reason. The
GPL is your friend!!

Original comment by e...@waxworlds.org on 22 Oct 2009 at 9:43

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It sounds to me like the majority prefer Apache 2.0 licensing. Unless I hear
objections with good reasons in the next few days, I'll switch the project page 
over
to Apache 2.0. Like I said, I only picked it because I'm familiar with it and 
had to
pick something. 

Original comment by ttab...@gmail.com on 22 Oct 2009 at 9:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@eeedam I understand the concerns and why you like GPL. But my objection of 
using GPL
is not just to benefit the Open Android Alliance community.  But to benefit 
everyone
from HTC down to Google. I want what we do to help make the android experience 
better
for everyone not just us. This is something GPLv3 doesn't allow for. 

Original comment by jude...@gmail.com on 22 Oct 2009 at 9:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@judeibe: I would argue exactly the opposite!

The only thing the GPL would prevent is the upstream inclusion of our 
modifications.
And don't forget that's only by Google's choice. Anyone wanting to benefit from 
our
changes would always be free to use the OAA's "free" Android (or any other 
Android
derived from it) instead of whichever flavour shipped with their device. So, 
really,
no-one is prevented from benefiting from our changes.

In addition, using the GPL means that Google, HTC or anyone else can't take our 
code,
improve it further and then *not* release the source code! So, in fact, using 
the GPL
*ensures* that we benefit!

Perhaps we need some clarification from someone who can speak on behalf of the 
OAA.
Is the project's goal to improve all people's Androids (including Google's, 
HTC's and
anyone else's (potentially closed source) Android), or is the goal to create a 
better
Android that is, and remains, free and the property of the community?

Original comment by e...@waxworlds.org on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@eeedam JBQ (Google AOSP Developer) on the android-discussion groups discussed 
this
here are some quotes

[quote]-Anything GPL-related is scary, even v2. Not all of the worry might be
justified. A big part of the concern is to make sure that having GPLapps 
doesn't turn
the entire system into GPL.

License-wise, this is my opinion of how it'd have to be set up:
-the licenses on the existing modules aren't changed, so that the changes done 
in the
community branch for those modules can be brought back into the master branch 
(and
from there into official releases).
-new modules that are brought in from existing open-source projects keep their
license (see below about GPLv3), so that changes can be contributed upstream 
into
those projects.
-new modules created from scratch should be under ASLv2 if they could 
potentially be
integrated into the master branch, ASLv2 or (L)GPLv2 if they're fundamentally
replacements for Google apps. BSD
-like could be considered for special cases where it's more appropriate than 
ASLv2.
-(L)GPLv3 is out of the question in all circumstances - it scares the phone 
industry
so much that we'd be hurting the entire Android ecosystem if such code made it
anywhere into the Android Open-Source Project.[/quote]

Here it is most phone developer won't use it due to "software patents", while I 
am
against software patents, until this is cleared up in courts (the legality 
Software
patents is going through the court system as we speak/type), Apache License 
seems to
be the best way to go if we want it to be included in any phone on release.

It also seems that google want to contribute to open source development but 
don't
want to be forced to show the source of their patent products and their partners
products. Gpl would force them to do this. Which they wont budge on that issue.

Original comment by jude...@gmail.com on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@judeibe: thanks for responding! I'm glad to have this debated!

Here are my thoughts:

The issue of any GPLed code making it in to Google's Android repository is a
non-issue, I think. Google/HTC/etc aren't forced to include our changes. I don't
think this will affect the phone industry either, we're not talking about 
replacing
Google's Android with a GPL version here, we talking about creating an (L)GPL 
Android
in *addition* to Google's.

Patents, on the other hand, and as you pointed out, are more complicated. I'm 
not a
fan of them either, but since their here, what exactly is the issue?

If the issue is that developers would be worried that if they modified Android 
and
redistributed it, then they would have to release their modifications (including
their IP) then, yes, they would. If they want to benefit from the the OAA's
"community" Android, they should share their improvements with the community. 
They
are always free to redistribute Google's Android instead.

Or perhaps the issue is that *app* developers would be worried that they would 
have
to release the source code to their apps (including their IP)? If so, then the 
best
solution would be for us to LGPL our Android platform and GPL our apps. Problem
solved. App developers can write all the proprietary apps they like (just as 
they can
with Linux), but all modifications to OAA's Android or OAA's apps would require 
those
modifications to be shared with the community.

There are a couple of things you said in your post that make me think you're
concerned with getting the OAA's Android "on a device" by the manufacturer 
(e.g., you
said, "...if we want it to be included in any phone on release") and to me, 
this is
irrelevant. Is the goal here to get our Android on a device? I understand that 
Google
is concerned with the widespread adoption of Android and they want their code 
to be
as adoptable as possible (by people who the GPL doesn't set out to benefit
(companies, not communities) who probably don't understand the GPL very well), 
but is
this also our aim?

Again, I would really appreciate clarification from someone with the authority 
to
speak on behalf of the OAA! Is our goal to do what Google is doing (except 
fully open
source)? Or are we setting out to create a community Android (free software)?

Original comment by e...@waxworlds.org on 22 Oct 2009 at 11:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@eeedam If we get developers on board and do it GPLv3 (which if it ultimately 
goes
that way I have no problems with it. I'm not exactly anti-gpl. I'm move of 
making
money of software not service man, but that's besides the point) I don't know 
what
OAA @ttabbal official view is on this. I would like the option of our 
improvements
being for the benefit of everyone not just the community.

You say making gplv3 means developers have to post their changes back to OAA 
which
will benefit the community. But how will it benefit Android/AOSP (not Google 
Android,
the unbranded android is AOSP which is under Apache). All the work done on AOSP 
we
benefit from, but they don't benefit from us. That is not a fair exchange. AOSP 
cant
easily be converted to GPL since all parties have to come to agreement to 
change the
licensed and that ain't happening. So to make it fair Apache License seems the 
best.

Original comment by jude...@gmail.com on 22 Oct 2009 at 11:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please don't use GPL. All the other players in the game play nice using APL and 
other
non-viral license. If you want to be a good community member, then don't 
introduce
the GPL virus. 

Original comment by frank.ge...@gmail.com on 5 Nov 2009 at 1:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@frank.ge...: I don't know who you think "all the other players" are, exactly, 
but I
can assure you that they don't all use the APL. The Android software stack is 
built
on top of linux and a variety of libraries that are all GPLed. So your Android 
device
is already full of GPLed software.

Furthermore, your reference to the GPL as "the GPL virus" is a response that 
I've
seen many times towards the GPL. I find it really hard to understand. The term
"virus" is clearly meant as a derogatory description of the GPL. I can only 
assume
that it comes from people not really understanding the purpose of a copyleft 
license.

In reality, the copyleft nature of the GPL is the very thing that *protects* the
community by keeping the ownership of the code in the community. You can call it
"viral" if you like, but I think you're just being inflammatory. You could just 
as
easily call it "protecting" or "community retaining". And in any case, it seems 
odd
that you associate the application of this "community protection" with not 
being a
"good community member".

@judeibe: I'm not against people making money from software, I just think that 
the
platform's underlying ethos has a huge impact on how app developers think about 
it.
Look at the iPhone for example. There's not may free/open-source apps on that,
because the iPhone its self is a locked-down, closed-source and highly 
proprietary
platform (can you have different degrees of proprietary-ness? :). There are 
already
far more open-source apps for Android than there are for the iPhone, and I 
suspect
that this is largly due to the open-source stance that Google took with 
Android. If
we took a "free" software (not just open-source) stance, that will surely 
reflect on
the app developers too. This benefits the whole community; users and developers.

Regarding the AOSP, you say that we would benefit from their work but they 
wouldn't
benefit from ours, and you're right. But you have to remember that by using the 
APL
they are not only permitting us to do that, they are actually publicly saying 
that
that is ok! It's what they want us to do. It it weren't, they would have 
released
their code under a copyleft license. And this is exactly the reason I'm 
suggesting we
*shouldn't* use the APL. I think our public statement should be, "if you want 
to use
our (community) code, that's fine, but we expect you to share your improvements 
back
with the community".

Really, I think the only question here is this: Do we want to release code that
people can take, modify/improve and then sell it on as proprietary software 
without
any obligation to share their modifications back with us?

Original comment by e...@waxworlds.org on 6 Nov 2009 at 6:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If the Android framework includes GPL code, then apps that link to it also need 
to be
GPL. I would prefer to allow non-GPL code. If people don't want to buy or 
download
non-GPL applications, they they don't have to.

I would prefer to see Android released under the LGPL as opposed to the GPL. 
This
still requires that handset manufactures release the source. Eventually if 
patches
from this are adopted, then there won't be a non-free release like Android 2.0 
or
non-free Android phones either.

LGPL would still allow Google to offer it's non-free apps for those who want 
them.
GPL in the framework could prevent that.

I am not a fan of using APL or we guarantee things like Android 2.0 happening 
again.

Original comment by timri...@gmail.com on 13 Nov 2009 at 5:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, apologies, I keep referring to the GPL, but I am actually advocating the 
LGPL.

Original comment by e...@waxworlds.org on 13 Nov 2009 at 4:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

the code license on this project still lists GPL though. I think that should be
changed to LGPL.

Original comment by timri...@gmail.com on 17 Nov 2009 at 8:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think (L)GPLv3 is definitely the way to go. Choosing ASL or even GPLv2 will 
mean
that phone companies will continue to lock down phones in ways that are bad for
users. Even if phone companies are afraid of the GPL, if they can gain an 
advantage
by using it they will get over that fear :)

Original comment by kieran.f...@gmail.com on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:59