[aianus]

If they were so great they wouldn't have to force themselves onto consumers by bundling their crapware into carrier sponsored phones.

Not to mention $10B is probably less than the amount Google alone has spent developing and promoting Android. Please explain how their direct competitor should be entitled to piggy back on that work for free.

Edit: apparently they even have their own 'Yandex Browser' based on Chromium. Shameless.

[piyush_soni]

Ignoring other things, there is no shame in forking and developing an Open Source project on one's own (license permitting, which the Chromium's BSD license does). That's the whole purpose of Open Source projects.

[aianus]

It's legal, sure, but it's shameless and wrong to take an open source project built by your competitor, change the branding to yours, bundle it with crapware, and pretend you're innovating.

[piyush_soni]

That's what I was saying. Open source projects are _meant to be_ forked and rebranded. There is nothing to be ashamed of here, license granting.

[guard-of-terra]

"Please explain how their direct competitor should be entitled to piggy back on that work"

Nobody forced Google to release Android under open licenses and by doing so they certainly didn't get green light to abuse monopoly.

"I will open source my software and see that it only does me good" - that's not how it works.

[aianus]

Sure, Android was released under open licenses and Yandex is free to use it.

However, Play Store is not open source or released under an open license so if you want to use Android to spread your crapware you don't get to complain that Google doesn't want to license you their app store. They have no moral ground to stand on.

[guard-of-terra]

"you don't get to complain that Google doesn't want to license you their app store"

Did they?