Is android truly opensource?
As I understand it, some of androids code is released under Apache License version 2.0, and some is released under GNU General Public License, both opensource licenses.
But in a discussion, someone has claimed that the core code of android is held by Google only, and is not released to public, and that only some of the code around the android core code is opensource, other code around the android core code is not opensource.
Is he right, or am I right in my thinking, that ALL of the android code is opensource, either under Apache License version 2.0 or under GNU General Public License?
Nobody to answer this one?
I would very much like to put the guy in place, if possible
I don't know but I do believe that Google have reserved the right to keep or delay what they want to.
For example, they never and have no intend to release Honeycomb source codes.
Are they violating??? I don't know but if they do, things already heat up.
AkkerDK said:
Is android truly opensource?
As I understand it, some of androids code is released under Apache License version 2.0, and some is released under GNU General Public License, both opensource licenses.
But in a discussion, someone has claimed that the core code of android is held by Google only, and is not released to public, and that only some of the code around the android core code is opensource, other code around the android core code is not opensource.
Is he right, or am I right in my thinking, that ALL of the android code is opensource, either under Apache License version 2.0 or under GNU General Public License?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is true open source, and the code is widely available on the web, buts that's aosp. Proprietary things like radio binaries, and custom guis from manufacturers (eg touchwiz from Samsung) are not, so the code for thses is not
votinh said:
I don't know but I do believe that Google have reserved the right to keep or delay what they want to.
For example, they never and have no intend to release Honeycomb source codes.
Are they violating??? I don't know but if they do, things already heat up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know about HC source code, and also know that Google claims that to be a special situation ... Have no idea whether Google are violating license terms or not, they very well could be.
But that's not what I'm after, not for such one time situation, it's the general situation I'm interested in.
When Google releases source code, do they release everything, or are they withholding something, core code or other, or both?
What I have read so fare, Google releases ALL code under the 2 different opensource licenses, but I can't really be sure.
My thoughts are also, that CM wouldn't be possible, if Google don't release all android code ... The only thing I have ever read, is that the problems with CM releases is specific hardware related code, that has nothing to do with android code itself ... But again, I can't be really sure, I'm not a developer and don't have the technical knowledge to proper argue this point.
I would very much like, if someone could provide me with the proper arguments to put this guy in place, maybe even direct me to sites, that will show him the error of his ways
icenight89 said:
Android is true open source, and the code is widely available on the web, buts that's aosp. Proprietary things like radio binaries, and custom guis from manufacturers (eg touchwiz from Samsung) are not, so the code for thses is not
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess that those things are hardware specific or specific to the phone manufacturers, and has to do with the hardware manufacturers and not with android itself?
Here you go mate: http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html
Extra info in the side bar on the left as well.
All of Android is Open Source; however as others have stated - manufacturers will develop their own radios and such (eg: Imagine buying a laptop with Ubuntu installed on it - the OS is open source, but the firmware for your WLAN adapter inside the laptop might not be)
Related
I'm curious about something. Are there any roms for the photon that's built from the ground up by the dev and not based on anyone else's work? I've noticed that most of the roms for the photon are in some way based off another devs work on another phone just with minor tweaks here and there. Joker seems to be the only dev I've noticed that has done most of his own work.
Sent from my MB855 using XDA
Looks like you missed the point
This all here is the Android community and everyone uses others work, when making roms.
Even Joker uses others work. ;-)
Do not say anything about something,if you know nothing. ;-)
Except for pure AOSP builds, ALL ROM's are based off of either CM or stock (ports fall under one of these two groups as well). Pure AOSP builds are very rare as the dev has to write a lot of the drivers, framework and such from scratch. This applies to all android devices.
Pure AOSP builds on devices without full sourcecode from the component manufacturers are considered so time consuming that most devs never even both. A perfect example is the Tegra2 development board. Even those that have purchased the dev board do not have access to all the sourcecode as there's a lot of proprietary code that does not fall under opensource. Short of somebody risking some serious legal issues by releasing proprietary code the code is never released. At last check, nobody has all the source code for the Tegra platform.
Another example is during a conversation with agraben at the android bbq the subject of sourcecode came up. Both he and I were a little pissed the handset manufacturers are using wrappers (closed source) to get things like cameras and the like to work. In some cases the released drivers (open source) are pretty much useless as most of the functions are handled by the wrapper. Think of it as soft-drivers (proprietary) vs hard-drivers (opensource).
There is also a lot that goes on behind the scenes. It's not uncommon for devs to share fixes and such with each other. Lets say I find a way to make the mopho print money (I wish this was true). Unless I'm a complete d*ck, I'd send other devs a PM/email and give the code to any devs that want it. The most I may ask for is a mention in the credits.
Lokifish Marz said:
Except for pure AOSP builds, ALL ROM's are based off of either CM or stock (ports fall under one of these two groups as well). Pure AOSP builds are very rare as the dev has to write a lot of the drivers, framework and such from scratch. This applies to all android devices.
Pure AOSP builds on devices without full sourcecode from the component manufacturers are considered so time consuming that most devs never even both. A perfect example is the Tegra2 development board. Even those that have purchased the dev board do not have access to all the sourcecode as there's a lot of proprietary code that does not fall under opensource. Short of somebody risking some serious legal issues by releasing proprietary code the code is never released. At last check, nobody has all the source code for the Tegra platform.
Another example is during a conversation with agraben at the android bbq the subject of sourcecode came up. Both he and I were a little pissed the handset manufacturers are using wrappers (closed source) to get things like cameras and the like to work. In some cases the released drivers (open source) are pretty much useless as most of the functions are handled by the wrapper. Think of it as soft-drivers (proprietary) vs hard-drivers (opensource).
There is also a lot that goes on behind the scenes. It's not uncommon for devs to share fixes and such with each other. Lets say I find a way to make the mopho print money (I wish this was true). Unless I'm a complete d*ck, I'd send other devs a PM/email and give the code to any devs that want it. The most I may ask for is a mention in the credits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The manufacturers are looking to create a competitive advantage between themselves and their "competition" (re: HTC vs. Motorola) so they proprietarize and hope to win. Where they lack foresight is that those "competitors" are the least of their problems; external forces drive the competitive market and these include Apple, RIM and Nokia. Open sourcing more of their code would leave them with many benefits and a handful of weaknesses, but the benefits would far outweigh the losses. They may not want the community to see their sloppy code or quality untested code. When everyone's watching, the audience able to poke holes in your quality is magnitudes larger than your QA folks. I've had my fair share of holes poked, but that's the joy - live and learn.
OP, the entire Android platform is based off a combination of coders' work, from the home dev up to Linus Torvalds.
I'm thankful for what those who dev on here do, because it can be a grueling and unappreciated process; but when it works >= expectations, hallelujah!
Has anyone use this yet? It seems powerful sshd. However, it require installing digicontrol that does not list if it is gpl or what...not sure if that is trustable?
Dropbear does not work for me, I got sh: /usr/libsec/sftp-server. File not found whenever I connect to it...so I'm looking for another open source SSHD.
kobesabi said:
Has anyone use this yet? It seems powerful sshd. However, it require installing digicontrol that does not list if it is gpl or what...not sure if that is trustable?
Dropbear does not work for me, I got sh: /usr/libsec/sftp-server. File not found whenever I connect to it...so I'm looking for another open source SSHD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may check GPL and Apache 2.0 part of source code... dropbear is binary, all patches published. All other (like DigiControl) is wrapper. You may trust it not more than other close source programs on you phone. But it is much more then other fully closed application at market. Hope it will be useful, because version 0.2.x published with help of users.
I am unable to open it absolutely all components, but I hope that it will be real in future when the project would be mature.
It is alpha software!. There are still some problems with stability and some features not implemented. But it worked.
Author
Ezzzzh said:
You may trust it not more than other close source programs on you phone. But it is much more then other fully closed application at market. Hope it will be useful, because version 0.2.x published with help of users.
I am unable to open it absolutely all components, but I hope that it will be real in future when the project would be mature.
It is alpha software!. There are still some problems with stability and some features not implemented. But it worked.
Author
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for making it freebie. You are right on less closed source than others. Reason I was nervous was because instead of 1 piece implementation, it was 2 piece where the 2nd piece was closed source. As a user, I wasn't sure why it was done that way when most others did it all in 1 implementation. I guess you just want to protect your hardwork and didn't want to give it away or get gobbled up as part the GPL license which is understandable. Anyway, I did tried it earlier, it worked on Vibrant CM9. It seems like a powerful tool but the gui seems to make it complex to understand at first. I'll keep using it for awhile and let you know how it goes.
I'm sure I'm not the first developer to ask this question, so at the risk of possible embarrassment I pose this question to the development community as a way for myself and others to learn:
When we build AOSP projects we often do based on the repos from that project. But in Samsung's OSRC releases you often get 2 packages: kernel source and a "platform" package. In there is what Samsung "says" is needed to build AOSP for that given device. For example, I often see bluetooth and audio source in there.
So here's the question....
Given the issues we're seeing in i9505 variants for Bluetooth and headphone call audio, why do we not try using this source for testing purposes? Sure, it may not be the newest but if it works where we are currently having issues; couldn't the differences be merged and hopefully resolve the issue?
Obviously Samsung's solution of just "dropping" the source on top of stuff already being used doesn't make sense. But I can't believe I'm the first to ask and there has to be a reason why. Hopefully some maintainers can shed some light and by doing so, help newer devs (like me) understand the background behind it.
Thanks!
garwynn said:
I'm sure I'm not the first developer to ask this question, so at the risk of possible embarrassment I pose this question to the development community as a way for myself and others to learn:
When we build AOSP projects we often do based on the repos from that project. But in Samsung's OSRC releases you often get 2 packages: kernel source and a "platform" package. In there is what Samsung "says" is needed to build AOSP for that given device. For example, I often see bluetooth and audio source in there.
So here's the question....
Given the issues we're seeing in i9505 variants for Bluetooth and headphone call audio, why do we not try using this source for testing purposes? Sure, it may not be the newest but if it works where we are currently having issues; couldn't the differences be merged and hopefully resolve the issue?
Obviously Samsung's solution of just "dropping" the source on top of stuff already being used doesn't make sense. But I can't believe I'm the first to ask and there has to be a reason why. Hopefully some maintainers can shed some light and by doing so, help newer devs (like me) understand the background behind it.
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The stuff in platform isn't what is needed for AOSP - it is (with rare exceptions) only GPL-licensed stuff Samsung is legally obligated to release.
Occasionally little bits and pieces of it are useful (like a single GS2 or GS3 release that included libsecril-client source code), but usually not.
For example, the BT stack in all GS1 platform releases was useless for AOSP, because it was Broadcom's hacked-up version that had dependencies on a proprietary binary (I forget its name - they got around GPL by making it a separate program that communicated using sockets with the rest of the BT stack.)
All of the BT/headphone problems with Snapdragon-based GS4s are, as I understand it, issues with libcsd-client (same library that was troublesome for Note2 and CM until someone ran libcsd-client through Hex-Rays Decompile to see what Samsung mangled...)
It seems like OEMs have a bad habit of hacking up libcsd-client in undocumented ways - LOTS of Qcom devices have had miscellaneous weirdness stemming from libcsd-client lately.
Hi,
I have this question for very long and I keep getting into debate ref the same question.
Do vendors have to pay Google, any license fees or any other amount to use Android ?
Some will say No, some Yes, hence citation /source of information is requested.
Thanks,
Shubham
Short Answer: Android is free. Source: The Open Handset Alliance website, the industry group technically behind Android: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html
Complex Answer: Google isn't paid anything, but some others are. Microsoft coerced the OEMs to license its patents, and some other companies have pulled off the same. Apple's trying to get in on it with their lawsuits. So, whenever you buy an Android phone, companies that had absolutely nothing to do with it get a few cents.
guptashubham123 said:
Hi,
I have this question for very long and I keep getting into debate ref the same question.
Do vendors have to pay Google, any license fees or any other amount to use Android ?
Some will say No, some Yes, hence citation /source of information is requested.
Thanks,
Shubham
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think yes.
Because the vendors do not release the source of their ROM.
That helped, thanks
Embluss said:
Short Answer: Android is free. Source: The Open Handset Alliance website, the industry group technically behind Android: openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.htm
Complex Answer: Google isn't paid anything, but some others are. Microsoft coerced the OEMs to license its patents, and some other companies have pulled off the same. Apple's trying to get in on it with their lawsuits. So, whenever you buy an Android phone, companies that had absolutely nothing to do with it get a few cents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Many do, many don't. But that is onto vendor, but it doesn't infer vendors pay to Google.
omerjerk said:
I think yes.
Because the vendors do not release the source of their ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
omerjerk said:
I think yes.
Because the vendors do not release the source of their ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is incorrect as most OEMs don't release their source code such as HTC because they have put a lot of work to make a sense version of android and therefore don't want anyone other than themselves compiling roms from the HTC source. Android is open source but what the vendors or OEMs do with it is completely up to them.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 beta
**Press the thanks button if I have helped you.
WildfireDEV said:
This is incorrect as most OEMs don't release their source code such as HTC because they have put a lot of work to make a sense version of android and therefore don't want anyone other than themselves compiling roms from the HTC source. Android is open source but what the vendors or OEMs do with it is completely up to them.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 beta
**Press the thanks button if I have helped you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the point is Android is licenced under open source. And it's derivatives must also be open source.
So I thought that vendors pay to google to make the derived android version closed source.
The derivative of open source, may or may not be open source
omerjerk said:
Actually the point is Android is licenced under open source. And it's derivatives must also be open source.
So I thought that vendors pay to google to make the derived android version closed source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
twizted
twizted
To my understanding the AOS is Linux which is open source code meaning that anyone could modify it what gives a company like ZTE the right to lock the bootloader hence stopping modifying the OS they may have the patent on the phone but they do not own the patent on the software two different things how can I do that
Twiztid Richard said:
twizted
twizted
To my understanding the AOS is Linux which is open source code meaning that anyone could modify it what gives a company like ZTE the right to lock the bootloader hence stopping modifying the OS they may have the patent on the phone but they do not own the patent on the software two different things how can I do that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The kernel is covered by the GPL and that requires that anybody who alters this source must also make these changes available (upon request). The rest of Android is covered by a variety of licenses but mostly the Apache license. This does not require that changes to the code be made available to anyone else. This is why OEMs like Samsung and ZTE can keep the source code for their android skins a secret. Bootloaders are hardware specific and most of the Qualcomm chips use alterations of Google's bootloader, which also does not require that alterations be made available to anyone else. Currently, there are no laws or regulations that require for bootloaders to be unlocked or at least unlockable upon request. The good news is that it is also not illegal to unlock them.
justmpm said:
The kernel is covered by the GPL and that requires that anybody who alters this source must also make these changes available (upon request). The rest of Android is covered by a variety of licenses but mostly the Apache license. This does not require that changes to the code be made available to anyone else. This is why OEMs like Samsung and ZTE can keep the source code for their android skins a secret. Bootloaders are hardware specific and most of the Qualcomm chips use alterations of Google's bootloader, which also does not require that alterations be made available to anyone else. Currently, there are no laws or regulations that require for bootloaders to be unlocked or at least unlockable upon request. The good news is that it is also not illegal to unlock them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok thank you very much.