[lnanek2]

The whole point of free software, though, is that you can fork it and customize and use it as you like. If someone wants to fork Android to run on stoves, and they have to break compatibility to do that, if it was free software it would support and allow that. Instead you aren't even allowed to use the SDK or let developers use the SDK if you do so. You can't really claim Android is open or free anymore now, just that it uses a few free pieces, which are being taken away wherever possible.

[drzaiusapelord]

>The whole point of free software, though, is that you can fork it and customize and use it as you like.

No one is stopping you from writing your own SDK. Reverse engineer the API and off you go. Fork your own android. Make your own play store. Its not a violation of "freedom" because something is inconvenient.

Its like when people complain about Linus ignoring their patches. Sorry, but its still free software, its just done under terms you don't appreciate. Fork it if its such a huge problem for you.

[raganwald]

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. You're replying to a post that says the SDK is not free. Writing your own SDK if you don't like it is agreeing that the SDK is not free.

The next bit about Linus makes no sense at all. We are not talking about Google ignoring your fork of Android or your fork of the SDK, we're talking about being prohibited from forking the SDK or using it to fork Android.

The SDK is not free. It is not inconvenient to fork it, it is prohibited. Android may be free by your definition, but the SDK is not.

[DannyBee]

You don't need to reverse engineer anything, the source is still available, it's still almost all apache2.

[DannyBee]

Actually, this is false entirely.

The SDK sources are still Apache2, and you can build your own SDK with them if you wanted.

You just can't take the Google-built SDK binaries (except as allowed by a third party license, such as Apache 2), or non-open source pieces, and use them to do it.

[microtonal]

The SDK sources are still Apache2, and you can build your own SDK with them if you wanted.

Actually, the Apache 2 license does not disallow you to impose further restrictions. So, if you agree to a EULA, that is valid.

[DannyBee]

What you say is somewhat true but irrelevant. The EULA applies to the SDK binary download, not to the sources. If you go grab the sources, there is no EULA on them. They are straight apache2/etc. You can grab the sources, and build your own SDK, without ever involving this EULA. The binary SDK has a bunch of non-open source parts in it (they are clearly marked, AFAICT), so you'd have to deal with that, but otherwise ....

Even if you did agree to the EULA, again, the EULA applies to the binary download of the SDK.

If you want to try to claim that one of the clauses binds you otherwise, it's an interesting claim to make (though the clause is clearly written to talk about the SDK), but one i think is wrong.

FWIW: I'm an IP lawyer specializing in open source licensing

[mkopinsky]

So it sounds like what we need isn't someone to reverse engineer or even fork the SDK, we just need someone to publish the binaries for download with an EULA, right?

[DannyBee]

Well, you'd have to build your own binaries from source, and then ship those. It won't entirely match the SDK, the SDK has non-open source components.

[mkopinsky]

Wait, so the SDK has non-open source components, and people are up in arms that it isn't free? Huh??

[darkarmani]

Why can't you compile from source that is under Apache 2?