reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:I'm no IP lawyer, but Android appears to be somewhat dual-licensed. What I mean is that it runs the Linux kernel and the kernel is licensed under the GPL, which means any modifications must, by law, be released as open source. However, the Google side of the OS (the more user-level stuff) is mostly licensed under the Apache license which does allow a company to modify the source for proprietary reasons (much like the BSD license which is what allowed Apple to take BSD and modify it without giving back). So, really, I guess we can blame Google for releasing much of Android under a license that is not copyleft friendly. said by theeinstein:
Its pretty sad that Google even allows it.. It proves that even they will bend over to the dollar!
Google released Android as open source software, so it can be modified at will by anyone who wants to use it. So AT&T took Android, crippled the hell out of it, and handed it to Moto to load onto the Backflip. Google had no say in the matter.
At any rate, I think it's a matter of time before this device is hacked by reverse engineers.
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999