3 ms·

Hold on a minute. While the Android SDK terms have changed over the years (most notably with the recent "anti-fragmentation" clause), that's not what the post

by fpgeek 14y ago

Hold on a minute. While the Android SDK terms have changed over the years (most notably with the recent "anti-fragmentation" clause), that's not what the post is talking about. Instead, the post is identifying the Android SDK as non-free because you have to agree to Google's Terms and Conditions in order to use it at all. That's absolutely correct, however... As someone who downloaded the original SDK in 2007, I can tell you that this was true from the beginning. Sadly the Wayback Machine is having trouble retrieving their first crawl of the terms (February 2009), but here's a crawl from January 2010 that shows that the offending clause has been there for at least 3 years: http://web.archive.org/web/20100111025451/http://developer.android.com/intl/ja/sdk/terms.html http://web.archive.org/web/20100111025451/http://developer.a... A more accurate title would be: Google's Android SDK has always been proprietary, but I only just noticed. Edit: Based on the date at the bottom of the wayback page, the linked version of the agreement dates back to April 2009.

taeric 14y ago
The point may be that agreeing to their terms and conditions previously did not result in one losing any rights. Not sure, though.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  One of the problematic sections others in this thread have mentioned dates back to at least April 2009: "3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK." Here are some more rights you were giving up back then: "4.3 You agree that if you use the SDK to develop applications for general public users, you will protect the privacy and legal rights of those users. If the users provide you with user names, passwords, or other login information or personal information, your must make the users aware that the information will be available to your application, and you must provide legally adequate privacy notice and protection for those users. If your application stores personal or sensitive information provided by users, it must do so securely. If the user provides your application with Google Account information, your application may only use that information to access the user's Google Account when, and for the limited purposes for which, the user has given you permission to do so. 4.4 You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the SDK, including the development or distribution of an application, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Google or any mobile communications carrier." At first glance, I don't think 4.3 or 4.4 is unreasonable (3.3 is more complicated), but those terms are clearly non-free. Free means free to use for any purpose (including trying to invade people's privacy or taking down cell networks) because different people will reasonably disagree about what purposes are and aren't legitimate.

by fpgeek 14y ago

taeric 14y ago

The point may be that agreeing to their terms and conditions previously did not result in one losing any rights. Not sure, though.

fpgeek 14y ago
One of the problematic sections others in this thread have mentioned dates back to at least April 2009: "3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK." Here are some more rights you were giving up back then: "4.3 You agree that if you use the SDK to develop applications for general public users, you will protect the privacy and legal rights of those users. If the users provide you with user names, passwords, or other login information or personal information, your must make the users aware that the information will be available to your application, and you must provide legally adequate privacy notice and protection for those users. If your application stores personal or sensitive information provided by users, it must do so securely. If the user provides your application with Google Account information, your application may only use that information to access the user's Google Account when, and for the limited purposes for which, the user has given you permission to do so. 4.4 You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the SDK, including the development or distribution of an application, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Google or any mobile communications carrier." At first glance, I don't think 4.3 or 4.4 is unreasonable (3.3 is more complicated), but those terms are clearly non-free. Free means free to use for any purpose (including trying to invade people's privacy or taking down cell networks) because different people will reasonably disagree about what purposes are and aren't legitimate.