4 ms·

> "Android" per-se is Apache 2, i.e. free to use without restrictions (thus Amazon's "Fire OS"). That's why I stressed "in a factory". No factory which makes c

> "Android" per-se is Apache 2, i.e. free to use without restrictions (thus Amazon's "Fire OS"). That's why I stressed "in a factory". No factory which makes commercial Android is permitted to make unlicensed android.

akiselev 10y ago
I think that is almost certainly false. Do you have a source? According to [1], OEMs can use Android trademarks as long as they conform to the Android compatibility standard, which doesn't require a license for the Google Mobile Service (Google Play, etc) [2]. If you do want to brand it as an Android device, you largely just have to maintain compatibility with the Android ecosystem regardless of whether you distribute Google apps. If you don't want to use the Android trademark (which is independent of the source code), you don't have to do anything. [1] https://source.android.com/source/faqs.html https://source.android.com/source/faqs.html [2] https://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html https://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html
- dispose13432 10y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-rival-phone-to-prevent-android-fragmentation/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-... So Amazon can't get Acer to build them phones or tablets. As most independent manufacturers build Android phones, Amazon had a hard time finding someone to make Fire for them.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Your source does not back up your claim. Acer signed a completely different agreement to join the Open Handset Alliance and that's why they couldn't make another Android-but-not-Android based device. Joining the OHA and signing the "non-fragmentation agreement" has nothing to do with licensing Android, which as I mentioned above is really trademark licensing that requires you maintain compatibility for that one device.

4 ms·

> "Android" per-se is Apache 2, i.e. free to use without restrictions (thus Amazon's "Fire OS"). That's why I stressed "in a factory". No factory which makes c

by dispose13432 10y ago

akiselev 10y ago
I think that is almost certainly false. Do you have a source? According to [1], OEMs can use Android trademarks as long as they conform to the Android compatibility standard, which doesn't require a license for the Google Mobile Service (Google Play, etc) [2]. If you do want to brand it as an Android device, you largely just have to maintain compatibility with the Android ecosystem regardless of whether you distribute Google apps. If you don't want to use the Android trademark (which is independent of the source code), you don't have to do anything. [1] https://source.android.com/source/faqs.html https://source.android.com/source/faqs.html [2] https://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html https://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html
- dispose13432 10y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-rival-phone-to-prevent-android-fragmentation/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-... So Amazon can't get Acer to build them phones or tablets. As most independent manufacturers build Android phones, Amazon had a hard time finding someone to make Fire for them.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Your source does not back up your claim. Acer signed a completely different agreement to join the Open Handset Alliance and that's why they couldn't make another Android-but-not-Android based device. Joining the OHA and signing the "non-fragmentation agreement" has nothing to do with licensing Android, which as I mentioned above is really trademark licensing that requires you maintain compatibility for that one device.