{title:}

Thu, 13. February 2014 – 17:44

Je mehr ich ueber Android zu lesen bekomme, desto weniger bleibt von meinem frueheren Eindruck eines Open-Source Projektes bestehen. Einen interessanten Blick hinter die Kulissen bot Ars Technica in dem Artikel Google’s iron grip on Android:

Google has always given itself some protection against alternative versions of Android. What many people think of as “Android” actually falls into two categories: the open parts from the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which are the foundation of Android, and the closed source parts, which are all the Google-branded apps. While Google will never go the entire way and completely close Android, the company seems to be doing everything it can to give itself leverage over the existing open source project. And the company’s main method here is to bring more and more apps under the closed source “Google” umbrella.

Eine sehr nette Ergaenzung zu diesen Ausfuehrungen gab es nun unter der Ueberschrift New Android OEM licensing terms leak:

The least understood area of the Android ecosystem has always been the highly secretive Google Play Apps licensing process. While Android is open source, the Google applications, like the Play Store, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Play Services, and others must be licensed. This licensing agreement is called the “Mobile Application Distribution Agreement” (MADA) and comes with tons of restrictions. Previously, MADA details have come out of the Skyhook case, but those agreements were from 2009, a time when Android was only at version 1.1. Thanks to the still ongoing Oracle v. Google trial, a “new” version of the Google App licensing agreement has been made public.

Waren es ansonsten doch eher Apple oder Microsoft, welche man mit drakonische Auflagen in Verbindung bringen wuerde, so scheint Google dem in keinster Weise nachzustehen. Dies platziert definitiv einen Daempfer auf die Begeisterung fuer die iOS Alternative.