4 ms·

> Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that decision. It's not that they didn't want to pay, they wanted to make a fully open source

> Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that decision. It's not that they didn't want to pay, they wanted to make a fully open source mobile OS. Going with OpenJDK would have forced them to make Android GPL which would have been a no-no for carriers and going with Sun's licensed JVM would have made Android not open source. So Google had to go with their own VM if they wanted to have an open source mobile OS based on Java.

protomyth 16y ago
They wanted Java, but didn't want OpenJDK or a licensed VM. At that point, I gotta wonder why they didn't pull a Microsoft and pick / develop a different language? They use Python a lot. Buying a license from Sun that allowed for a open vm would have probably worked given how money starved Sun was. /edit/ I should point out I am worried about what other VMs this has implications for and not really liking software patents in the first place (if it can be copyrighted, I don't think it should be patentable).
jrockway 16y ago
Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers? Linux is GPL'd, and I'm pretty sure Android uses that. I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it. (After some coercing, of course.)
- technomancy 16y ago
  > Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers? Because carriers are staggeringly stupid, I think. > I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it. I wish that were true: "Unlike the DROID, the Milestone has a bootloader that only allows signed Firmware to load. This prevents users from booting Custom ROM images not signed by Motorola that have become popular in the Droid modding community." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milestone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milesto... Many Motorola phones are similarly restricted. Did I mention carriers are phenomenally stupid?
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Didn't that finally get cracked, though? If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. Instead, they do the equivalent of asking you really nicely not to root the device. Motorola tries harder than most, though, I will agree.
    - technomancy 16y ago
      > Didn't that finally get cracked, though? Not unless it was done quite recently. The Droid X and Droid 2 are still locked down. > If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. From what I've read the Droid X's bootloader is quite a bit like that.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        Yes, it was quite recently: http://erictric.com/2010/08/26/motorola-droid-2-root-also-works-for-motorola-droid-x-running-android-2-2-froyo/ http://erictric.com/2010/08/26/motorola-droid-2-root-also-wo...
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  The kernel is GPL, but that doesn't stop you to write non-GPL apps on top of it. However, using a GPL OpenJDK would have made every single app on Android GPL.
  - hboon 16y ago
    Using a GPL-license SDK makes every app written with the SDK GPL? That doesn't make sense.
    - aphexairlines 16y ago
      It makes sense from the perspective of a mutually-beneficial open source deal: you link against my open software, so you open yours too. also, from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.
  - aphexairlines 16y ago
    The kernel license has an explicit exception to the GPL for user programs: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
    - patrickaljord 16y ago
      No, that's related to writing kernel modules. I'm talking about writing propriety apps on a gnu/linux distribution, android in that case. This is totally legal and doesn't depend at all on the kernel license exception. Think skype on ubuntu. However, if the toolkit/sdk you're using on a gnu/linux distribution is GPL, then all your apps will have to be GPL, unless you use a non-gpl sdk or write your own non-gpl sdk as Google did.
  - 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

They wanted Java, but didn't want OpenJDK or a licensed VM. At that point, I gotta wonder why they didn't pull a Microsoft and pick / develop a different language? They use Python a lot. Buying a license from Sun that allowed for a open vm would have probably worked given how money starved Sun was. /edit/ I should point out I am worried about what other VMs this has implications for and not really liking software patents in the first place (if it can be copyrighted, I don't think it should be patentable).

jrockway 16y ago

Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers? Linux is GPL'd, and I'm pretty sure Android uses that. I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it. (After some coercing, of course.)

technomancy 16y ago
> Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers? Because carriers are staggeringly stupid, I think. > I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own build on it. I wish that were true: "Unlike the DROID, the Milestone has a bootloader that only allows signed Firmware to load. This prevents users from booting Custom ROM images not signed by Motorola that have become popular in the Droid modding community." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milestone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid#Motorola_Milesto... Many Motorola phones are similarly restricted. Did I mention carriers are phenomenally stupid?
- jrockway 16y ago
  Didn't that finally get cracked, though? If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. Instead, they do the equivalent of asking you really nicely not to root the device. Motorola tries harder than most, though, I will agree.
  - technomancy 16y ago
    > Didn't that finally get cracked, though? Not unless it was done quite recently. The Droid X and Droid 2 are still locked down. > If carriers really wanted to lock down devices, they would use techniques like the crypto cards ATMs have do. From what I've read the Droid X's bootloader is quite a bit like that.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Yes, it was quite recently: http://erictric.com/2010/08/26/motorola-droid-2-root-also-works-for-motorola-droid-x-running-android-2-2-froyo/ http://erictric.com/2010/08/26/motorola-droid-2-root-also-wo...
patrickaljord 16y ago
The kernel is GPL, but that doesn't stop you to write non-GPL apps on top of it. However, using a GPL OpenJDK would have made every single app on Android GPL.
- hboon 16y ago
  Using a GPL-license SDK makes every app written with the SDK GPL? That doesn't make sense.
  - aphexairlines 16y ago
    It makes sense from the perspective of a mutually-beneficial open source deal: you link against my open software, so you open yours too. also, from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.
- aphexairlines 16y ago
  The kernel license has an explicit exception to the GPL for user programs: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
  - patrickaljord 16y ago
    No, that's related to writing kernel modules. I'm talking about writing propriety apps on a gnu/linux distribution, android in that case. This is totally legal and doesn't depend at all on the kernel license exception. Think skype on ubuntu. However, if the toolkit/sdk you're using on a gnu/linux distribution is GPL, then all your apps will have to be GPL, unless you use a non-gpl sdk or write your own non-gpl sdk as Google did.
- 16y ago