Serious Legal Concerns About Android-x86.org Builds

[anandr...@yahoo.com]

Hi all,

Hate to be the one that puts this out there, but I'm a bit concerned that Android-x86.org builds are committing a ton of copyright infringement.

The builds posted on the site include both libhoudini.so (Intel copywritten) and Google Play Store, Gmail, Youtube (Google copywritten).

Google has threatened legal action against those pirating Google Play on unapproved Android devices, and I doubt we're allowed to ship libhoudini in Android-x86.org builds.

For Android-x86.org to be successful, it has to play fair too… I really urge the maintainers to pull these items from Android-x86.org builds. I know it isn't in the source code repo, but it's just as wrong to ship builds to end users with that pirated code.

There are other options for getting Android apps, the Amazon Appstore works great, and thanks to the growing number of x86 devices with Android, the need for libhoudini is pretty small at this point anyways.

Thanks.

P.S. If there has been some sort of backroom deal between Google and Android-x86.org to ship the code, I would expect that the team would at least acknowledge such, and have no complaint otherwise if that's the case.

P.P.S. An alternative would be to post guides on how to add libhoudini.so and Google Play Store to an existing Android-x86.org installation, if you are licensed to do so. There are certain devices (Samsung ACTV Q for example) that may qualify for this, so the information (but not the binaries) would be free to share. 

[Greg McGee]

Development and testing is ~ impossible w/o access to the std Google apps set to test against.

If it's not legal, Google needs to make it explicitly so or the AOSP can't really go anywhere. 

The threats I have seen made were vs. commercial vendors selling flake/untested devices with Play etc.

libhoudini is apparently being functionally replaced with qemu, and most apps (not written against the NDK) just work in any case.

OTOH the question "how to add/where to source" the gapps has come up many times and it appears to be Something We Don't Talk About.

[fgdn17]

isn't it bad enough we have the "patent" trolls tying up our courts repeatedly.........

now we're getting copyright "trolls" who want to tie up our technical forums.........

find another outlet for your complaints and/or take it up with the Apache Software Foundation

refs: http://www.dwt.com/files/uploads/documents/Presentations/11-11_Montague_OSSpaper.pdf

      (notice this article is "paid for" written by a legal group who has an interest(financial?) in it)

IMO: copyright infringement becomes an issue when someone other than the author, of said infringed

     work, is making money off it...do you really think that is the case here and at cyanogenMOD, xda,etc.???

[anandr...@yahoo.com]

First, the assertion that you need GApps to test Android-x86 against is completely incorrect. The Android CTS was designed so that you would never need private Google code.

CyanogenMod was ordered to remove Google Play from their firmware. XDA-Developers was prohibited from hosting it on their site. I really don't see how Android-x86.org is any different.

I don't believe there are topics that developers should not discuss. I think if Android-x86.org becomes dependent on pirating software to gain users, that it won't be able to grow. I think a much easier process would be what I proposed - post walkthroughs on how to add Google Apps yourself should you have permission to do so, and also walk people through adding Android app stores that are legally licensed for sideloading (Amazon Appstore, etc).

The Android 4.3 build appeared to have libhoudini, though I may be wrong, I only checked briefly. I know there's an effort to tap QEMU's ARM translator, but I haven't seen it in-use yet anywhere.

Finally, Android-x86 must strip Google Play if it doesn't have permission because it's bad for the whole community. OEMs will run away from embracing Android on x86 if they hear that it's loaded with pirated apps.

[Christopher Price]

Hi all,

Figured I'd add my two cents here. From my read of things, nobody is challenging the triumphs of Android-x86.org. Personally, had it not been for Android-x86.org, I'd probably be working at some conglomerate right now.

I for one thing it would be great if Google allowed Google Play to be downloadable from Google.com. But, it isn't. Google uses the Google Experience to control Android devices, and shape how they are built.

Having a pirated copy of the Google Experience inside Android-x86.org is bad on several layers. In my opinion, it shouldn't be there, even if Google gave some backchannel blessing.

First, it creates utter confusion. OEMs get scared, and can't start contributing. No PC maker can touch the stuff, and then Android-x86.org builds start to become better than what an OEM can come out of the gate with. So any accomplishments they make... building their own app stores, making Android awesome without Google, seem lame in comparison.

Second, it is legally dangerous. Some manager changes positions inside Google, and before you know it, the Android-x86.org project goes down... this time, for good, because Google will always have the power to ban Android-x86.org on legitimate grounds. It's a Sword of Damocles that this community just doesn't need.

Third, and most importantly, it's not needed. Sideloading makes Android awesome. You can sideload app stores, and you can sideload alternatives to every single Google app. You can even sideload in Google Play.

I support the guide outlined above - offer instructions on how to install Google Play, but please, let's comply with the law and keep Google Play out of binaries hosted.

Finally, on libhoudini, it's actually pretty much the same situation. Intel has no problem with leaving hooks there... heck, Android-IA has the same hooks. I wouldn't be surprised if Chih-Wei Huang didn't copy-paste them over from Android-IA. But, like Google, Intel has said hosting libhoudini.so is not allowed. Period. End of story.

Do I agree with it? Politically speaking, it's not for me to say. I just can operate in this environment and push on with or without their support. It's because Android-x86.org has stuck to following the rules that I'm able to raise funds and continue work on iConsole.tv today - it would be utterly depressing to see things not get back to that standard.

[Masaki Muranaka]

Hello,
As far as I checked, there seems to be no license violation in
git.android-x86.org.
So OEMs can build their clean distributions by themselves. This is a
important point.

And I also worry about libhoudini and GApps in ISO images.


2013/8/24 Christopher Price <ch...@christopherprice.net>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Android-x86" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to android-x86...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to andro...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-x86.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
--
Masaki Muranaka
Monami-ya LLC, Japan.

[Christopher Price]

The OEM problem isn't that they can't build a non-infringing version, it's that they won't want to.

Any effort there will seem inferior to the pirated Google Play-bundled build on Android-x86.org. Since the OEM can't include those apps in most laptops and desktops, since Google won't certify laptops/desktops.

Putting it another way, if Windows had no anti-piracy measures, how many PCs do you think would be sold with Windows preinstalled? If we want to get OEMs contributing to Android-x86 (sans Google Play), we have to follow the rules here too… otherwise their efforts will seem inferior, because our build has free pirated Google Plays apps inside.

Worse, the OEM will get users asking why their Android-x86 device can't have those Google apps too, since the Android-x86.org build has them and theirs won't.

This is a reason why OEMs are not embracing Android-x86.org - it's one that's easy to fix though. If Chih-Wei Huang is busy, I'm happy to rebuild all the ics-x86 and jb-x86 4.3 build online, sans libhoudini and Google Play.

Christopher Price
ChristopherPrice.net

> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Android-x86" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-x86/Yg746eJMAyI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to android-x86...@googlegroups.com.

[fgdn17]

what, pray tell, OEM's would possibly be interested in adding android-x86 or android-ia to their product?????????

this implies there is a market for older PC's that they want to exploit for profit..........that seems like quite a stretch..LOL

even with the android-ia which only supports the newer uefi only products there don't appear to be a lot of OEM's jumping on it.....

inquiring minds would like to know.....

[Christopher Price]

Please calm down, for starters. You're aggressive tone is doing nothing to help your case.

Intel just gave guidance to OEMs yesterday that Android-IA will be in release mode for Android K-branch. No OEM expects to ship the developmental-release versions of Android-IA. Intel has given excellent guidance to OEMs and has considerable product lines in development. I can't say much more than that, as I'm under NDA with Intel already.

Samsung has committed to shipping Android-IA PCs, so if you're complaining about Samsung being a small potato… you have some major size issues to rationalize with.

I'm not speaking on behalf of the major companies that are funding my startup right now. I will say that this is an issue that they are concerned about, however.

Christopher Price

ChristopherPrice.net

[fgdn17]

great non answer from another BS artist....LOL

[Greg McGee]

If Google doesn't wish to make the std Google apps available to the AOSP, then I guess the only alternative is to choose a set of decent freely redistributable app replacements and include those.

This way, the users have a complete//usable system, and Google/Intel look like idiots their lawyers are forcing them to be.

If that's the game that's how it must be played.

[Masaki Muranaka]

Hi Christopher,

I look you confuse two issues.

The one is legal breakage in ISO. I also worry about it.

The another is your "OEMs" don't have enough skill to build ISO image up.

2013/8/25 Christopher Price <ch...@christopherprice.net>:

> The OEM problem isn't that they can't build a non-infringing version, it's that they won't want to.

I can't catch why hackers on Android-x86.org should help OEMs' business.
Here is NOT a free-beer factory.

Probably they want to sell their hardwares and/or services, right?
If it is true, they should have enough skills to build their ISO images.
Frankly, Android-x86 is not stable. Still they can't use official ISO
images as is.
As Android-x86 project is basically open source project, OEMs can
build a non-infringing version.

Indeed some OEMs may be hard to build it themselves just now.
In this case, they can find their business partners.
Some companies will provide OSS support like Android-x86.

Best,

[Christopher Price]

What I am saying is that fixing the ISOs to be legal will help encourage OEMs to provide development assistance directly to Android-x86.org.

One OEM my team is working with had told me directly they can not work on OSS projects that are shipping unlicensed binaries in any form on their sites.

I'm simply sharing that shipping unlicensed binaries creates barriers to companies contributing their engineering time... In addition to the other reasons that I noted why it's a bad idea.

Sent from my Droid DNA

[Christopher Price]

I answered each of your questions point by point. You are becoming toxic to this community, and that is all I have to say on this topic further to you.

Sent from my Droid DNA

[Steve Jones]

@Christopher Price While obviously you have first hand knowledge of this "problem" I would equate an OEM's making substantial contributions to this project on the same level as an Arm OEM contributing directly to the Cyanogenmod project, I would be very surprised if they would choose this as the "Entry Point" into the Android ECO-System. If it's intel cpu's they are using I expect the contributions to go directly into the Intel AOSP project. Also from what I've read AMD are about to enter the fray so to speak.

Obviously there are other x86 Processors out there and the AOSP Project does support building for x86 and that should be the place an OEM should start. android-x86.org is not the only game in town.

Just to add however , and maybe you could explain to this to the OEM that there's 300+ OSS projects that make up Android so where are they drawing the line? Even if you rule out the entire Android UserLand ( which is effectively whole of Android ) I'd say at a guess there probably still 150+ projects that function independently of this one. for example mesa which is run by as I'm sure you know freedesktop.org surely they're not going to rule out contributing to that because Android-x86 pulls from it.

So yeah, OEM's should definitely start upstream IMO.

[Masaki Muranaka]

2013/8/25 Christopher Price <ch...@christopherprice.net>:

> What I am saying is that fixing the ISOs to be legal will help encourage
> OEMs to provide development assistance directly to Android-x86.org.

I have no interest about OEMs' business.

> One OEM my team is working with had told me directly they can not work on
> OSS projects that are shipping unlicensed binaries in any form on their
> sites.

Super! It's a big business chance to you! It's a time to build ISO up
by yourself.
OEM should pay funds to you hacker!

If you have some interests, you can build your ISO image up.
I can say it's easy. Quite easy.
Because I build my legal version ISO and I use it in my digital
signage products.

Frankly, you and your friend(s) also can build it in your house, with
no permission, with no report.
Even if you must apply patches, you can keep it closed (under their
licenses) as you may know.

Repeatedly, here is not a free-beer factory. Let's pay somewhere if
you use it for your business.

And Repeadedly, I surely worry about license breakages in official test ISO.
But the reason is hacker's justify and legal risks. Not for OEMs'
happiness as you say.
I won't talk more about this issue if the point was OEMs

[Masaki Muranaka]

Hello Steve and hackers,

2013/8/25 Steve Jones <trev...@gmail.com>:

> android-x86.org is not the only game in town.

It's a important point.
Android-x86 and our official repository is (even if it is unstable)
enough quality to use specific applications.
But... android-x86.org is?

As far as I know, members in android-x86.org is almost volunteer.
I think it's too hard to current Android-x86.org members even if each
member have excellent skills.
Generally it's too hard to keep enough stability for business use.
It's impossible to volunteers and part-times.
I saw dozens death of OSS projects that are dejected by witless
business oriented expects.

So I guess it's better OEMs lovers establish their company. Like
Ubuntu, RedHat, and so on.
You know, Ubuntu is based on Debian system.
Debian is a good package provider but they can't be Ubuntu. Ubuntu
also can't be Debian.
Ubuntu hires some Debian developers. It seems almost good relationship.

Best,

[hj91]

right from day 1 after downloading source code and building iso of android x86 (and intel android-ia), my immediate concern was lack of google play and google apps in final build..

then i read on some forums that it needs an agreement between google and hardware makers and only then official google apps can be added to that particular android image.

that leaves individual developers in a lurch..

imagine how many people will agree to buy or install android on their x86 desktops/laptops etc if entire google experience is missing. i say this with confidence and research i made in indian market.

please dont think of sidelining or considering facts that alternatives exist for google play..it is true that a techy can understand this, but not all customers would welcome that..they very much associate google apps with android.

i personally have no issues with amazon market apk and they also have wonderful apps, albeit not all run well on x86 devices..google play market app at least tells if an app is compatible with your x86 device or not.

and yes, it is very unsafe to pack stuff that does not belong to you and big corporations, example google has enough money to hire a badaas lawyer and sentence developers to jail..and it will be unfortunate if it really happens..

there can be a way out of this mess

1. the authors and users of android-x86 or similar projects can sign a peace pact of understanding with google,

2. someone with deep pockets needs to build and alternative google experience like app market..(not fdroid)

3. avoid controversy..involve some corporate entity.

i guess till this issue gets sorted out, i will use official android on my arm processor powered device..and hopefully wait for android on x86 devices to have official google support.

[Steve Jones]

Hi Masaki

As far as I know although I'd happily be set straight Chih-Wei is currently the sole maintainer of the project ( except for a couple of patches here and there ).

Ok @OP Can you please define what you mean by successful? Personally I would already define this project as a success, It's massively surpassed it's original stated aims and is currently making fine progress in some newly explored areas like x86_64 compatible builds for example.

To address your concern with Gapps etc while the statement you make is undoubtly correct I'm sure "Google has threatened legal action against those pirating Google Play on unapproved Android devices" you've completely misunderstood the Context to which this applies. They are talking about Manufacturers ( mostly found in the far east ) who ship actual hardware of which this project is neither.

You do make some valid points however, It just a pity that you're about 4 years too late in making them , I'd suggest you read http://wiki.rootzwiki.com/Gapps to gain some much needed insight to where this project actually sits in the whole android eco-system.

Android-x86 is a Community Build of Android, If it was on a mobile embedded platform it would be described as a "custom rom" and although I'll grant you that the GAPPS should be unbundled, It seems Google turn a blind eye to this behaviour as long as the Community Leaders are playing by the rules and setting the right example the everyone is happy

KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON!

[Harshad Joshi]

Can we have someone from Google to clarify their stand on bundling gapps with android x-86 !?

Technically, neither android-x86 developer/users are wrong, and neither Google is wrong of defending their right of allowing/disallowing gapps distribution with android iso's..

what we all need is a dialog between Google representatives and android-x86 users to sort out technical,legal,ethical issues if any..

I support android-x86, and it is a brilliant project, and if I was Google, I would be happy to see a developer working hard to extend android to x86 platform which has tremendous potential.  

sent from Google Nexus device

[Masaki Muranaka]

Hi Steve,

You may remember the origin of GApps issues was "Google sent a cease
and desist letter to CyanogenMod's chief developer".
Obviously CyanogenMod team is not "Manufacturers ( mostly found in the
far east )". Android-x86.org also.
So GApps must be unbundled from ISO images. Though we know it becomes
inconvenient. At least officially.

But in real, I have no right to stop including GApps into ISO images
as I'm not Google. Just only I can make a suggestion.



2013/8/26 Steve Jones <trev...@gmail.com>:

[anandr...@yahoo.com]

Hi all,

First, thanks for all the discussion on this topic. I started this conversation to help make sure Android-x86.org stays the best AOSP build for x86 hardware out there.

But, I think we're getting a little lost in the minutia. It is important to look at how compliance will impact the project. However, the real core question is... is hosting binaries of Google Play & libhoudini.so in ISOs or otherwise, legal? And, is it the right thing to do?

Everything thus far in the discussion on that point has been, no, it isn't to either. It's copywritten code and Android-x86 doesn't meet the criteria/approval to license it for free distribution.

I'd like everyone to stay focused on this point. One of the main benefits of Android-x86.org is that it mirrors AOSP, only with changes to accommodate x86. Embracing that, staying on that track helps us all make Android better.

P.S. An OEM can of course bundle Google Play with an Android-x86.org device, provided it passes CTS and CDG. As Christopher mentioned, Samsung is already at work on that. The ATIV Q may have been delayed in order to live up to the promise of truly dual-booting Windows and Android. 

[Masaki Muranaka]

Hello,

There are two sides. Official ISO and git repos.

I don't know about Official ISO. There is no meaning to discuss about it without any evidences.

I don't know Chih-Wei have licenses or not. Anyway OEMs should be re-licensed from Intel/Google if they are sane, IMO.

git repos seems under opensource licensed (as I told ago). But I can't guarantee they are legal clean. No one can't.

Generally all opensources have some risks there have tainted code. This is not only Android-x86. AOSP also.

I'm going to release unofficial ISO from opened git repos only.  It may help something for conservative people.

Code contributes are welcome.

Thanks,

2013/8/28 <anandr...@yahoo.com>

[Harshad Joshi]

if someone is interested in becoming OEM and wants to 'sell' android preloaded on intel pc/laptops etc, then he needs to sign up as googles official partner for including gapps..so that in case of issues, google can assist them better/ .

if not, its ok to include gapps for testing or non commercial purpose.. - this is my interpretation of entire topic.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Android-x86" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-x86/Yg746eJMAyI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to android-x86...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to andro...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-x86.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Harshad Joshi

[Christopher Price]

Your interpretation is incorrect. At least, according to U.S. copyright law.

There is no exemption for testing/non-commercial distribution in the Google Play license. That is precisely why CyanogenMod was forced to strip Google Play from their firmware.

[Masaki Muranaka]

Build your ISO image by yourself if you can't believe Official ISO.
tabletsx86 untested build and/or Conservadroid-x86 are also
considerable (if you can believe each image builder).


2013/8/30 Christopher Price <ch...@christopherprice.net>:

[Christopher Price]

I'm not concerned about "believing" (unless that was just a bad choice of English).

What I said (in my last post) is what Google conveyed to me in meetings with them.

If Chih-Wei Huang (who I hope will chime in on this discussion) has some authorization to host these copywritten files, I think we all have no problem here.

If they are being posted in an unauthorized manner, I think it's both wrong and a toxic hazard to the project. I don't seem to be alone in that concern.

I do applaud you Muranaka for doing what I offered to do, and generating builds of Android-x86.org that lack the files in question here. But, really, the concern is that the Official ISO is on Android-x86.org with those files.

I think Chih-Wei Huang needs to speak to that, honestly. If the files are fine to be there, fine. But it appears they are pirated and if so, it's just bad ethics to have them there. And, it endangers the entire project because Google could (legally) pull the plug without warning.

[dscm]

beware...he's a "copyright troll"

[Christopher Price]

The insinuation that complying with the laws, and rules that Google operates the servers underwhich builds are offered for download, for this very project, is being a "troll" - is insulting to the entire Android community. Android is the #1 operating system in the world, because the ecosystem complies with the very open source laws that are backed by copyright laws.

Without copyright laws, the GNU GPL would be unenforcible. And Android-x86 would not exist, because Google would never have gotten the Linux kernel that underpins Android today. Dalvik would never have been made, because Apache Foundation wouldn't exist.

[fgdn17]

Hey been following this thread and am trying to understand the outcry on copyright after 4-5 years.....

then I looked at the threads and realized maybe things aren't as we perceive.....

1) isn't it interesting that on aug 20 there was an announcement in these forums
   on a new Android-x86 powered Gaming Console by Chih-Wei.....

2) someone referencing iconsole.tv(a android powered gaming console) bantered back and forth in that thread with a developer from
   that team for a while......

3) 2 days later that same someone from that thread started a new thread on Serious Legal Concerns About Android-x86.org Builds
         (is this is what's meant by divide and conquer???)

4) within a day the "leader" of the iconsole.tv team started hammering the thread....and still keeps hammering it eight days later!?

5) I feel a lot of people looking for technical information on android-x86 may be getting turned-off when the
   administrators allow a thread like this to remain open..........this thread should be closed before Mr. Price and his
   "team" are allowed to do more possible damage to this open source product because of their own vested interest.....

[Roman V]

Between all the different builds mentioned I'd prefer something which just includes AOSP software. Any kind of application marketplaces and such I can load on myself if I need - start me off with AOSP, I say.