Android's "Non-Fragmentation Agreement"

superglaze writes "The biggest doubt cast over Android (whose SDK was released yesterday) has been the fact that much of it is licensed under Apache. There have been worries that manufacturers might fork the code road in a non-interoperable kind of way. I.e., they would have no obligation to feed back code to the wider Open Handset Alliance, or even tell the other members what alterations have been made. However, it turns out that Google made all the members sign a 'non-fragmentation agreement' to make sure everything works with everything. In theory at least. 'All of the partners have signed a non-fragmentation agreement saying they won't modify [the code] in non-compatible ways ... That is not to say that a company that is not part of the OHA could not do so.' Google's spokesperson highlighted the historical dangers of working with Java, the programming language that lies at the heart of Android. 'One of the current problems with mobile Java development is that Java has fragmented ... Java virtual machines have fragmented, but all the members of the OHA have agreed to use one virtual machine that can run script in Java'"

Re:Java? Fragmented?

[gEvil (beta)]

Isn't the scenario above EXACTLY what this non-fragmentation agreement should help to avoid? Seems like a reasonable way to ensure device compatibility to me. If a non-OHA entity fragments the code, that's fine, because their code/app/SDK/whatever isn't guaranteed to run on all of the devices anyway. If some hobbyists want to create their own derivative platform for device X, they're perfectly free to do so. Seems like all of the benefits of the open source model to me.

Re:Google versus Apache

[kevin_conaway]

In a strange kind of way, this is Google versus Apache. Or, commercial versus non-commercial. I know that this is a ridiculous simplification but it kind of smells that way to me.

How exactly? I don't see it that way

Google releases all their open source under the Apache license. I'm sure they have various reasons for choosing the Apache license, but I'd wager a major one is that it is very business friendly. They most likely understand what a pain it can be to include OSS products that are licensed under a different licensing scheme in a commercial product.

With Andriod, you are free...

[WindBourne]

to develop in non-java. Of course, it may not work on ALL handsets (in fact, all but certain that it will not). But if you do the work in Java, AND use their API, it is being guaranteed to work across all of the handsets. So, what is your gripe?

Re:Google versus Apache

[Kadin2048]

In a strange kind of way, this is Google versus Apache.

I really don't think it is. This is Google taking the Apache license and then fixing a major perceived weakness in it, at least within the context of their application (creating a single, uniform, mobile platform). And even then, they're not really restricting the software; they're just getting the people who are part of their trade group to agree not to stab each other in the back.

It's not Google "versus" anything or anyone, except perhaps maybe the closed-source phone manufacturers. Certainly not Apache.

Re:Java? Fragmented?

[crush]

Agreed 100% about the unfair commentary that there usually is on Java. But, Google are behaving rather bizarrely by on the one hand warning about the problems of forking and then on the other releasing their own JVM Dalvik instead of using JavaME [infoq.com]. So they're going with Apache's dodgy non-GPL approach and further causing fragmentation of the Java platform right when sun is doing the right thing by releasing a GPL'ed Java and Red Hat and others have stepped up to the plate to integrate the OpenJDK work with IcedTea. Google aren't stupid, I wonder what they're game is? I suspect they're trying to GPLv3-proof themselves.

Re:Java? Fragmented?

[omeomi]

behaving rather bizarrely by on the one hand warning about the problems of forking and then on the other releasing their own JVM Dalvik instead of using JavaME.

You've never written a JavaME (J2ME) app, have you? Getting a J2ME application to work properly on all phones is a huge nightmare. Just when you have it working on your phone, and all of your coworkers phones, you try it on your wife's phone, and find that it completely doesn't work. There's plenty of fragmentation just within J2ME, and it's made worse by the fact that it's almost impossible to test an application on every different phone that's out there. If Google can come up with an SDK that makes "write once run anywhere" a reality in the mobile world, I'm all for it.

Re:Java? Fragmented?

[rubycodez]

or we could say you're missing the point, java is so very fragmented already one more little fragment in the broken heap of glass won't make any difference at all. java: write once, run well only in the IDE of the developer.

Re:Java? Fragmented?

[dintech]

'Write once, run anywhere'. Hmm, I'm a java programmer and have been for 10 years. I know, as every java developer knows and realises, it actually means 'write once, run on the important places'. Meaning something that works on your desktop PC will also work on the Solaris server you intend to deploy it to.

Mostly people who use 'but I thought you said run ANYWHERE' argument should actually try to think about what that would mean in real terms. For example, should you expect a huge Swing application or something like Weblogic 9 to run on your 8 year old J2ME phone? Be sensible please...

Re:Hype again for nothing?

[m2943]

How serious Motorola is about Android when they have just made an serious investment into an Symbian company?

Motorola is already shipping lots of Linux phones (far more than Symbian), but they have almost no developer community. Android might be the answer to their problems.

Motorola just bought half of UIQ from Sony-Ericsson

I think UIQ is a short-term fix for them. I also don't think UIQ is going to make it in the long term. For Symbian, Series 60 is going to be the de facto standard.

Re:Google versus Apache

[Kadin2048]

Well, if the licensing of the SDK is anything to go by [livejournal.com] it seems more like it's a case of Google vs. Free Software.

Well, we always knew that there were going to be parts of the software stack that aren't going to be Free software. The FCC won't allow the parts that control the radio, for example, to be user-modifiable. So there have to be some big locked-down chunks, just because it's a cellphone.

If Google actually said that the "full stack" would be OSS, then shame on them. But it seems like they're going to be way more open than anyone else, and possibly as open as they can be while still getting FCC approval for the device.

At any rate, I find the whole project interesting but I'm not getting personally invested in it yet. I'll see what the license is like on the real thing before praising or condemning it.

Re:Perhaps they want to avoid symbians mistake?

[Sancho]

Perhaps Google wants to avoid this. Wants apps that push the hardware requirements so that the Android phones will HAVE to be powerhouses,

Gosh, I really hope not. Battery technology just isn't there for powerhouse phones :\