[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??