Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Google shutting down independent Android image developers?
There are reports that Google has sent a cease-and-desist letter to CyanogenMod, perhaps the most active independent creator of alternative images for Android phones since JesusFreke left the scene. The issue would appear to be the packaging of Google's closed-source applications - things like maps, the market application, gmail, etc. That is all stuff that Android phone owners already are licensed to run. If some sort of understanding is not reached, this action could have the effect of significantly chilling outside development for Android phones. Or perhaps it will just motivate the development of free alternatives for those few applications.
(Log in to post comments)
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 25, 2009 15:04 UTC (Fri) by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701) [Link]
I understand the legal position that Google is taking but this was just handled stupidly. The right thing to do would have been to put the closed source apps. on Android Market and then nicely ask Cyanogen to stop distributing them. After all, a number of Google employees hang out on the same #android-* IRC channels that he does and they do communicate frequently. Blind-siding him with a C&D was in poor taste and not the way to cultivate a community.
As it stands, people who bought the $425 Google Android Dev Phone 1 are left with a phone with an officially blessed open boot-loader that gives you the freedom to... NOT use Google services. And I even _pay_ for my GMail account.
Some middle manager somewhere is asleep at the wheel...
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 25, 2009 15:08 UTC (Fri) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link] the right thing to do would have been to put the closed source apps. on Android Market and then nicely ask Cyanogen to stop distributing them.Catch 22: android Market is closed source.
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 25, 2009 15:09 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
...which makes it the single application that needs free clone...
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 25, 2009 15:14 UTC (Fri) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]
> The right thing to do would have been to put the closed source apps....
No. The right thing to do would be to open source the closed source apps.
Cry
They have enough money Posted Sep 25, 2009 16:18 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] And I even _pay_ for my GMail account.Just curious: why pay for GMail when you can have it for free? I would have thought that, unlike LWN.net, Google earns enough money already.
They have enough money Posted Sep 25, 2009 16:37 UTC (Fri) by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701) [Link]
It's Google Apps and it has an SLA, a legal agreement between you and Google concerning services promised, it binds to a domain name, and it offers no advertising in the UI, at all.
They have enough money Posted Sep 26, 2009 5:40 UTC (Sat) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Unless you pay for a service, there is no contract between you. And without a contract you can't do anything if something goes wrong (say, the service is down or someone steals all your email and you loose business, for example).
They have enough money Posted Sep 26, 2009 21:21 UTC (Sat) by jhoger (guest, #33302) [Link]
You can enter a contract without exchanging money.
For there to be a contract, there must be consideration, but that need not be monetary. And in some cases a judge can even create a fictitious contract to prevent an injustice. If you see folks painting your house, but you didn't order the service, and you do nothing to inform them, you could end up paying for it.
Not that any of this applies in this case...
They have enough money Posted Oct 1, 2009 4:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
> And in some cases a judge can even create a fictitious contract to prevent an injustice. If you see folks painting your house, but you didn't order the service, and you do nothing to inform them, you could end up paying for it.
Maybe in some (really really scary and iniquitous) jurisdictions, but absolutely not under English law (and its derivatives), as established by lots and lots of lovely case law (which I could probably dig out and quote to you if you're at all interested). Indeed, the principle that contracts cannot be created retroactively is pretty much a foundation stone of English contract law - because obviously the injustice created by someone being dropped in a contract they had no way to avoid is far greater in principle than the injustice created by someone not being paid for a job they were never obliged to do.
They have enough money Posted Oct 1, 2009 15:03 UTC (Thu) by txwikinger (subscriber, #57821) [Link]
A contract under common law needs in general the construction of consideration on both sides, an agreement and the intention into enter a legally binding relationship. Obviously, this is not the case when someone just starts painting your house.
However, there is also a construct called unilateral contract which is for example can be a promise to pay a reward, which is not made to a particular person. I.e. if someone would say, the "I will pay X to the first person painting my house", and someone then would just go an paint the house, it is likely a court would find a contract being established.
They have enough money Posted Oct 1, 2009 18:12 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
That is true (cf. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - one of the formative cases of modern contract law in England), but in such cases the precise conditions required for the formation of a contract have still been specified and met ahead of time - an offer has been made and accepted. Premeditation and exactitude remain essential. (Consider, for example, someone saying, very loudly and after much libation, "If someone were to paint my house, they'd find themselves very much better off." Sufficient to form a contract? I'd contend not.)
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 25, 2009 20:18 UTC (Fri) by Russ.Dill@gmail.com (subscriber, #52805) [Link]
It seems to make sense to me. He doesn't have the rights to distribute those blobs. The image just needs to be reworked so that it does not contain them.
Secondarily, an app needs to be made that pulls those blobs out of a firmware image and pushes them to a rooted phone.
I think Google made the right move here by protecting their licensing.
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 25, 2009 23:07 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Or.....
They can sign him up as a licensed redistributor. That would also protect their licenses. But he would undoubtedly have to agree to some sort of restrictions to become a licensed redistributor.
We really don't know what options are open to Google. If there is some code in those blobs that they have licensed from others...they may actually be themselves forced to act in a certain way to stay in compliance as a licensee of third party code.
Yet another example of why proprietary code is problematic.
-jef
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 26, 2009 1:07 UTC (Sat) by mark_h (subscriber, #4628) [Link]
> I think Google made the right move here by protecting their licensing.
I think Google were quite within their legal rights, but the way it was handled -- /if/ the report is accurate and I'm not sure there's confirmation of that yet -- was stupid. I was just about to get an android phone in large part because of the availability of mods like this, and I'm seriously reconsidering now.
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 26, 2009 1:39 UTC (Sat) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Well, the mod is going to be available with or without these closed-source apps depending on how this gets resolved. Even if the apps have to be removed from the ROM, there exists some workarounds such as just keeping the old versions of the apps that every user already has anyway while flashing the new image, or copying them over from some official image (which can be redistributed).
But I admit, this doesn't feel too good. This sort of behavior seems unexpected coming from google, especially given how beloved cyanogen ROMs are and thus, how many sympathy points google is poised to lose by harassing one of the highest profile external developers. Seems pretty stupid to me, whatever the legal justifications may be.
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 26, 2009 5:44 UTC (Sat) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Agreed. The licensing is no surprise, I skipped out on owning one because of this.
Now I hope the community Android developers out there get busy and replace these apps with free software. Hopefully ones that work with more data sources than Google (OSM, your own email/calendar etc).
This can be a good thing!
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Oct 1, 2009 16:35 UTC (Thu) by Velmont (guest, #46433) [Link]
Yes, yes, yes! I so want a calendar (CalDAV) that doesn't send all it's info to the google mothership.
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 26, 2009 12:04 UTC (Sat) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
You could also consider the Nokia N900 which, while it's not as completely free as the OpenMoko phones, sounds a lot more freedom friendly than Android.
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 26, 2009 19:07 UTC (Sat) by lbt (subscriber, #29672) [Link]
Indeed, Nokia are going to reasonable lengths to permit the re-distribution of the few parts of Maemo/Fremantle that are closed.
Essentially they are working with us (Mer - http://wiki.maemo.org/Mer) to let us distribute community versions of the OS that can still use the closed blobs they had to/chose to use.
Nicely done Nokia...
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 28, 2009 10:30 UTC (Mon) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
Will you be putting those non-free blobs into Debian non-free?
Google shutting down independent Android image developers? Posted Sep 26, 2009 17:40 UTC (Sat) by talisein (subscriber, #31829) [Link]
So, Google doesn't want their binary blobs redistributed.
Meanwhile, Google complains that the handset manufacturers don't let them redistribute the binary driver blobs. MLIA
Really OT: Android or Symbian phone? Posted Sep 27, 2009 22:30 UTC (Sun) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link]
I currently think about buying either a Huawei/T-Mobile Pulse (Android) or a Nokia E52 (Symbian). Comparing the phones, the Pulse seems heavy (>130g vs. <100g) and clumsy (~14mm vs <10mm), it does not feature an FM radio, and the battery time is much lower. OTOH, Android is while not how I would like to see Linux on phones "cooler" than Symbian. It seems, there is at least a Python interpreter for Symbian, as well as free sofware to play Ogg Vorbis. But would the Pulse allow me (= technically) to remove software I don't want? (E.g. a Flash player which serves no other purpose to annoy me with ads I don't want to see, but have to pay for in terms of expensive UMTS traffic.) The opposite of CyanogenMods work :~) What is less broken in respect to usability? Android or Symbian? Which is more friendly for fans of free software? After all, both systems are based on free software...
|
|||||||||||||