3 ms·

IANAL, but won’t this violate the license terms Google provides for Play services?

chmod775 9y ago
Isn't it under the Apache 2.0 license, allowing modification and redistribution of such? Edit: That license might just be for FOSS components used within google play services, I'm hard pressed to find any specific license anywhere.
nizzo 9y ago
The whole point of this ROM is not including the Play Services at all. Don't know if it is against their ToS to use the Google services with microG instead of the GApps.
bubblethink 9y ago
It'll probably violate the ToS of hitting Google's APIs. However, no OEM is shipping these. So there's no one to sue. The responsibility is on the user who flashes this. The code itself is free software. If Google sends a takedown to github or whatever, that would be a PR disaster. More practically though, if this becomes big, it would be trivial for Google to break the APIs.
- morganvachon 9y ago
  > "it would be trivial for Google to break the APIs" That's the most likely route they will take. It keeps their hands clean, as they can drum up a perfectly valid technical reason to break the API.
  - larma 9y ago
    Actually it's not trivial to change server APIs because they don't fully control all the clients (not even all officially supported ones). For example: push notifications are supposed to work without setting up a Google account (if you use a certain Android version). But if you don't log in to your Google account, you're not receiving updates through Play Store, and thus Google can't update the client. Google breaking their claim will upset some of their users (probably not the typical smartphone users, but think of entertainment systems based on Android for example). Also note that most Google ToS don't specifically forbid third party usage (and some also specifically allow them), the only thing that's forbidden is to misuse APIs in a harmful way. Just another example would be the login/account management part of microG, that uses the publicly described OAuth APIs, obviously intended for third-party use.
    - morganvachon 9y ago
      Note I wasn't the one saying it would be trivial, just that it's the path Google can take if they want to keep their nose clean.
Aissen 9y ago
Maybe, since this hits Google APIs directly: https://github.com/microg/android_packages_apps_GmsCore/blob/d9e86d960d46e1be1f343591d7f37967b9ce8f3b/play-services-core/src/main/java/org/microg/gms/gcm/RegisterRequest.java https://github.com/microg/android_packages_apps_GmsCore/blob... But then, there's no TOS at this URL, and there's no point in taking this repo down, it would only make Google look bad and give microG free advertisement.
- larma 9y ago
  Most GCM and checkin related code is actually a Java rewrite of open-source code by Google. They released a client and some protocol specs as part of Chromium: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/trunk/google_apis/gcm https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/trunk/...
Qwertious 9y ago
Pretty sure that this is simply copying an API, and Google specifically fought a court case against Oracle, against the notion that they couldn't copy Oracle's Java API. As such, I doubt they'd have a leg to stand on without giving Oracle another shot at them.

Isn't it under the Apache 2.0 license, allowing modification and redistribution of such? Edit: That license might just be for FOSS components used within google play services, I'm hard pressed to find any specific license anywhere.

nizzo 9y ago

The whole point of this ROM is not including the Play Services at all. Don't know if it is against their ToS to use the Google services with microG instead of the GApps.

bubblethink 9y ago

It'll probably violate the ToS of hitting Google's APIs. However, no OEM is shipping these. So there's no one to sue. The responsibility is on the user who flashes this. The code itself is free software. If Google sends a takedown to github or whatever, that would be a PR disaster. More practically though, if this becomes big, it would be trivial for Google to break the APIs.

morganvachon 9y ago
> "it would be trivial for Google to break the APIs" That's the most likely route they will take. It keeps their hands clean, as they can drum up a perfectly valid technical reason to break the API.
- larma 9y ago
  Actually it's not trivial to change server APIs because they don't fully control all the clients (not even all officially supported ones). For example: push notifications are supposed to work without setting up a Google account (if you use a certain Android version). But if you don't log in to your Google account, you're not receiving updates through Play Store, and thus Google can't update the client. Google breaking their claim will upset some of their users (probably not the typical smartphone users, but think of entertainment systems based on Android for example). Also note that most Google ToS don't specifically forbid third party usage (and some also specifically allow them), the only thing that's forbidden is to misuse APIs in a harmful way. Just another example would be the login/account management part of microG, that uses the publicly described OAuth APIs, obviously intended for third-party use.
  - morganvachon 9y ago
    Note I wasn't the one saying it would be trivial, just that it's the path Google can take if they want to keep their nose clean.

Aissen 9y ago

Maybe, since this hits Google APIs directly: https://github.com/microg/android_packages_apps_GmsCore/blob/d9e86d960d46e1be1f343591d7f37967b9ce8f3b/play-services-core/src/main/java/org/microg/gms/gcm/RegisterRequest.java https://github.com/microg/android_packages_apps_GmsCore/blob... But then, there's no TOS at this URL, and there's no point in taking this repo down, it would only make Google look bad and give microG free advertisement.

larma 9y ago
Most GCM and checkin related code is actually a Java rewrite of open-source code by Google. They released a client and some protocol specs as part of Chromium: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/trunk/google_apis/gcm https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/trunk/...

Qwertious 9y ago

Pretty sure that this is simply copying an API, and Google specifically fought a court case against Oracle, against the notion that they couldn't copy Oracle's Java API. As such, I doubt they'd have a leg to stand on without giving Oracle another shot at them.